S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. petitioner Dr. Hawaldar Singh was recommend ed by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for being appointed on the post of Principal of Nagar Palika, Inter College, Jaunpur placing his name at serial No. 2 of the panel prepared by the Commission under Rule 7 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and notified under Rule 8 thereof on 24-10-1985 subject to the condition that he will be entitled to the appointment in the event of the failure of the recommedee placed at serial No. 1 in the panel to join the post within the specified time. 2. On the receipt of the panel from the Commission, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur issued a direction on 4-9-1986 requiring the Administrator of the Nagar Palika, Jaunpur to initiate proceedings under Rule 8 (3) (ii), (in), Rule 8 (iv) and Rule 8 (v) of the Rules framed under the Act. The Administrator was specifically directed to send the appointment letter to the candidate whose name found place at serial No. 1 within one month clearly indicating that he should join the post within ten days of the receipt of the order. 3. In the aforesaid letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools, it was further directed that in case the recommendee of the Commission whose name found place at serial No. 1 in the panel failed to join within the specified time, in that event name of Devi Prasad Singh should be treated to have been substituted by the name of second recommendee Pr. Hawaldar Singh, 4. It may be noticed at this stage that on 16-11-1985 one of the senior most teachers in the lecturers grade employed in the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur had filed a writ petition being writ petition No, 17098 of 1985 challenging the entire proceedings of selection culminating in the panel referred to hereinbefore and had sought for the quashing of the selection made for the post of Principal of the College besides seeking a direction requiring the Nagar Palika, Jaunpur, Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi not to give effect to the selection made on the post of Principal of the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur. In the aforesaid writ petition on 21-12-1985 this Court had passed an interim order restraining Devi Prasad Singh who had been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the aforesaid writ petition from joining the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur. Subsequently, however, another interim order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition requiring the petitioner to implead Dr. Hawaldar Singh as respondent in the above case and restraining the Nagar Palika, Jaunpur through its Administrator from appointing the petitioner as officiating Principal. This interim order was passed on 30-9-1986. The Writ Petition No. 17098 of 1985 was ultimately dismissed on merits on 5-1-1988. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter in the order issued by the District Inspector of Schools on 4-9- 1986, it was indicated that the appointment made pursuant to the direction contained therein shall remain subject to the final order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 6. Subsequent to the dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 17098 of 1985 on 5-1-1988, the petitioner Hawaldar Singh requested the Administrator that complying with the direction contained in the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools dated 4-9-1986, the appointment letter in his favour appointing him on the post of Principal of the College be issued as Devi Prasad Singh, the recommendee placed at serial No. 1 in the panel was not available. Receiving no response to the aforesaid request, the petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education Vth region, Varanasi vide his letter dated 20-7- 1988 for initiating the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act and directing the Administrator to issue appointment letter in his favour. However, since nothing was done by the Deputy Director of Education in the matter the petitioner again sent a detailed representation on 29-9-1988 to the Deputy Director of Education bringing to his notice that he had already request ed for taking action under Section 17 (1) of the Act vide his letter dated 27-10-1986 but nothing was being done in the matter even though the Com mission itself vide its letter dated 6-12-1986, has also requested for the imple mentation of the panel. It was further pointed out in the representation that in spite of repeated reminders nothing was being done and early action was solicited. It was further pointed out in the representation that in spite of repeated reminders nothing was being done and early action was solicited. The petitioner requested that suitable directions may be issued to that he may assume the charge of office of the Principal in question. 7. During the pendency of the aforesaid representation the District Inspector of Schools issued a letter dated 27-8-1988 requiring the Adminis trator, Nagar Palika, Jaunpur to inform about the action taken to handover the charge of the office of the Principal of the College to the recommendee placed at serial No. 1 in the panel with a direction that in case the first recommenndee failed to take over charge of the post in question by 15-11 -1988 it will be deemed that he was no longer interested in doing so in which event the recommendee placed at serial No. 2 in the panel may be appointed and handed over charge. 8. In the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act which were pending before the Deputy Director Education of an order dated 21-12-19988 was issued by the Deputy Director of Education Vth region, Varanasi requiring the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to see that in case Devi Prasad Singh the first recommendee had not joined by 15-12-1988, in that event it should be ensured that the recomendee placed at serial No. 2 in the panel is handed over charge of the office of Principal immediately. The aforesaid direction of the Deputy Director of Education was sought to be imple mented by the petitioner through the District Magistrate, Jaunpur and the Administrator, Nagar Palika Jaunpur for which an application was filed on 23-12-1988. 9. However, it appears that when the petitioner failed to get any relief in the aforesaid proceedings, he filed the present writ petition on 24-10-1989 seeking a direction to the opposite parties No. 2, 3. and 4 to appoint him on the post of Principal, Nagar Palika, Inter College, Jaunpur and permit him to join the said post and a further relief seeking a direction requiring the opposite party No. 2 the Deputy Director Education Vth region, Varanasi to exercise the powers under Section 17 of the Act and issue suitable order directing the Management of Nagar Palika, Inter College, Jaunpur to appoint the petitioner and pay him the salary from the date specified in his order. 10. 10. It is not disputed before me that Devi Prasad Singh, the recom mendee of the Commission whose name had been put at serial No. 1 in the panel referred to hereinbefore has been appointed as Principal of Navodaya Vidyalaya in Rajasthan. It is also not disputed that Sri Devi Pmsad Singh was relieved from the post of Principal of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh on 26-6-1989 which post he was holding prior to the noti fication of the panel in question. 11. The present writ petition is being contested by the respondent No. 4 only. In the circumstances, therefore, it is obvious that it is the Management of the Nagar Palika Inter College which is resisting the direction of the Com mission and that of the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Deputy Director of Education to which a reference has already been made above. 12. I have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur and have carefully perused the record. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the recom mendee of the Commission whose name had been put at serial No. 1 of the panel having failed to join the post of the Principal in spite of the direction contained in the latter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 4-9-1986 with in the time specified therein, the management of the College/administrator was bound under the law to issue the appointment letter appointing the peti tioner on the post of Principal of the College and the requisite direction in this connection having been issued by the District Inspector of Schools as contained in his letter dated 4-9-1986 itself there could be no justification for depriving the petitioner of the rights which stood secured in his favour under the provi sions of the Act. It is further urged that in any view of the matter the Deputy Director of Education himself haying issued the direction requiring the Management/administrator to appoint the petitioner and hand over the charge of the office of the Principal of the College to the petitioner in the event of the failure of Devi Prasad Singh to take over charge by 15-12-1988 there could be no valid reason to withhold the issuance of the appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and put him in charge of the office of the |principal in question. 14. It is strenuously contended that there has not been any default on the part of the petitioner and he should not be made to suffer on account of the default of the Management/administrator who was bound under the law to ensure that the direction issued by the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Deputy Director of Education in the matter relating to the enforcement and the implementation of the panel notified by the Commission was complied with. 15. It is further contended in this regard that in the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the provisions contained in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Board Act and Rules framed there under a statutory duty stood cast upon the answering respondents to ensure that the vacancy in the post of the Principal of Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur is filed up by appointing the petitioner on the said post. The respondent authority, it is urged, has failed to discharge its duty without any justifiable reason. 16. The learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur has, however, contended that as provided under Rule 7 (2) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Board Act, 1982 the panel prepared by the Commission holds good for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission. In this case it is urged that the panel was notified on 24-10-1985 and in view of the provisions contained in the afore said Rule the said panel got exhausted on the expiry of one year from the aforesaid date. The contention is that the panel in question had exhausted long before the date of the filing of the present writ petition and, therefore, no relief as sought for could be granted to the petitioner, 17. The contention is that the panel in question had exhausted long before the date of the filing of the present writ petition and, therefore, no relief as sought for could be granted to the petitioner, 17. It is further contended that in any view of the matter Devi Prasad Singh the first recommendee of the panel had joined the post on 31-12-1988 as the Management/administrator had granted an extension in this regard exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 11 (5) of the Act permitting the said recommendee to join the post by 31-12-1988. The contention is that since the first recommendee had joined the post on 31-12-1988 the panel, in any view of the matter, got exhausted on 31-12-88 with the result that the second recommendee ceased to have any right to be appointed on the post in question or to insist upon such appointment and being put in charge of the said post. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel. 19. In the present case the direction issued by the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 4-9- 1986 had not been complied with on the pretext that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17098 of 1985 the recommendee of the Commission whose name was placed at serial No. 1 of the panel had been restrained from joining Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur on 21-12-1985. It is also claimed that even the petitioner could not be granted any appoint ment in view of the interim order dated 30-9-1986 restraining the Nagar Palika, Jaunpur from appointing Dr. Hawaldar Singh as officiating Principal. 20. It is well settled that the law does not compel a person to do that which he cannot possibly perform and that the act of the court shall prejudice no person. Hawaldar Singh as officiating Principal. 20. It is well settled that the law does not compel a person to do that which he cannot possibly perform and that the act of the court shall prejudice no person. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and another, 1988 (2) SCC 602 at page 672, after noticing the observations of Lord Cairns in Rodger v. Comptoir D escompte : De Paris to the effect that one of the first and highest duties of all courts is to take care that the act of the court does no injury to any of the suitors had emphasised that no man should suffer because of the mistake of the court and if a man has been wronged, so long as it lies within the human machinery of adminis tration of justice that wrong must be remedied. In the aforesaid decision the Apex Court had also noticed the maxim aclus curiae neminem gravabit an act of the court shall prejudice no man, and had observed that this maxim is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law. 21. In another earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Dey and others v. Tarapada Day and others, AIR 1987 SC 2195 , it was emphasised that the maxim actus curias neminem cravabit should be applied with caution. In this case another maxim viz. lex non cogit ad impossibilia indicating that the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform was also noticed. Applying the aforesaid principles the Apex Court had excluded the period during which there was a subsisting injunction preventing the arbitrators from taking any steps. It was in view of the fact that the arbitrators or the parties could not have presented the award for its registration that the Apex Court had excluded the said period while computing the period of limitation for registration. 22. It was in view of the fact that the arbitrators or the parties could not have presented the award for its registration that the Apex Court had excluded the said period while computing the period of limitation for registration. 22. In a decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar Anand v. A. D. Sharma and Bothers, 1989 (1) UPLBEC 238, it was held that the period during which there was subsisting restraint imposed under the order of the Court was liable to be excluded while comput ing the period of limitation which in that case four months observing that in view of the subsisting restraint order the Chancellor was under obligation to fix an extended time limit while sending the communication so as to enable the Executive Council to exercise its normal statutory functions. 23. In an other decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Sheo Prasad Dwivedi y. State of U. P. and others, 1988 UPLBEC 150, it was observed that the object underlying the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 framed under the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is that the panel of selected candidates as notified by the Commission may not remain alive for an indefinite period so that necessary action may be initiated by the concerned authorities had the selected candidate is installed on the post with out delay. It was further observed that if for the reasons accountable to the selected candidates or the administration, the selection remains not acted upon, a fresh selection may be held according to law but this provision is not meant to provide for shelter to the persons who for motivated reasons obtain stay orders whereunder the panel of selection remains unimplemented. In the aforesaid case the panel was notified on 9-12-1983 and one year period had expired on 8-12-1984 but the District Inspector of Schools, however, by his order dated 5-1-1987 had required the inducting in office of the recommondee of the Commission whose name was on the aforesaid panel. In the aforesaid case the panel was notified on 9-12-1983 and one year period had expired on 8-12-1984 but the District Inspector of Schools, however, by his order dated 5-1-1987 had required the inducting in office of the recommondee of the Commission whose name was on the aforesaid panel. Holding that the entire period during which the recommendee could not join the post because of the stay orders was liable to be ignored and accepting the contention that periods during which stay order remained in operation had to be excluded from computing the period relevant for the purpose of the validity of the panel notified by the Commission, this Court, after excluding the periods during which the restraint orders were in operation, had held that the panel had not lapsed by the date it was sought to be given effect to. 24. Taking into consideration the ratio of the aforesaid decisions there can bt no manner of doubt that the entire period during which there exists some operative restraint order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction whereunder the panel notified by the Commission cannot be implemented in that event the said period is liable to be excluded while computing the period envisaged under Rule 7 (2) of the Rules framed under the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. 25. In the facts and circumstances as brought on record in the present case it is apparent that the Commission had notified the panel on 24-10-85. The District Inspector of Schools vide its letter dated 4- 9-86 had required the Management of the College/administrator to issue the necessary appointment to the recommendee whose name found place at serial No. 1 of the panel within one month asking him to join the post within ten days of the receipt of the letter and his failure to do so to issue the appointment letter in favour of the recommendee whose name stood place at serial No. 2 in the panel. The interim order in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17098 of 1985 referred to hereinbefore had been issued on 21- 12-1985. The other interim order was issued on 30-9-1986. The interim order in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17098 of 1985 referred to hereinbefore had been issued on 21- 12-1985. The other interim order was issued on 30-9-1986. There is no dispute that the aforesaid interim orders continued to remain operative till 5-1-1988 when the writ petition itself was finally decided and dismissed, with the dismissal of the writ petition, the afore said interim orders stood automatically vacated as they could not survive after the dismissal of the writ petition. There is nothing on the record to show that the recommendee at serial No. 1 in the panel took any stop to get instal led in the office of the Principal of the College during the period ending 20-12-1985. On 1-6-1988, the petitioner had approached the Administrator/ Management of the College requesting that since the first recommendee had failed to join he may be given the letter of appointment and allowed to join the post. When the Administrator did not pass any orders, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 17 of the Act on 27-10-86. The Deputy Director Education was repeatedly requested to intervene in the matter and exercise the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 17 of the Act and ensure the installation of the petitioner, the second recommendee on the panel, in the office of the Principal of the College. This is clear from the letters and the representations filed by the petitioner on 20-7-1988, 16-8-1988 and 29- 9-1988. 26. However, it appears that the recommendee whose name stood placed at serial No. 1 of the panel moved an application on 15-11-1988 seeking time upto 15-12-1988 to join the post. He again sought for an extension on 14-12-1988 and it appears that the management granted the extension sought for permitting the first recommendee to join the post by 31-12-1988 and the contesting respondent claims that the first recommendee had joined on 31-12-1988. 27. In the aforesaid circumstances the question that arises for conside ration is as to whether the recommendee of the Commission whose name stood at serial No. 1 in the panel had any subsisting right on 30-12-1988 to join the post of Principal on the strength of the extension alleged to have been granted by the Management/administrator. 28. As has already been noticed above the panel in question had been notified on 24-10-1985 as noticed by the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 4-9-1986. 28. As has already been noticed above the panel in question had been notified on 24-10-1985 as noticed by the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 4-9-1986. If the entire period during which the restraint orders issued by this Court to which a reference had been made above is excluded from being taken into account for computing the period of one yean envisaged under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Act in that case the panel could at the most survive upto 10-11-1988. The application seeking an extension of time was moved by the first recommendee on 15-11-1988 i. e. much after the aforesaid date. The Administrator/management initially granted the extension to join the post upto 15-12-1988. Thereafter it was again extended upto 31-12-1988. In the circumstances indicated hereinbefore the panel so far, as the first recommendee was concerned had ceased to be operative before 15-11-1988. In any case no rights on the basis of this panel could be claimed by the first recommendee on 14-12-1988 when he sought for an extension for joining the post. It is, therefore, obvious that the Administrator/ Management of the College had ceased to have any jurisdiction to grant any extension whatsoever enabling the first recommendee to join the post on or before 31-12-1988 or permit him to join the post on 31-12-1988 as claimed. 29. However, on the failure of the first recotameadee to join the post during the period elapsing between 24-10-1985 to 20-12-1985 and thereafter from 6-1-1988 to 1-6-1988 on which date second recommendee moved the application for his being installed in the office of the Principal of the College and join the post, whatever right the first recommendee had, by virtue of his name having been put at serial No. 1 in the panel had ceased and extingui shed by operation of law and a valuable right stood secured in favour of the second recommendee on the panel to get installed in the office of the Principal in question which right could not be denied in the manner as done by the respondent-authorities. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The provisions contained in Section 11 (5) of the Act at the relevant time provided as under: 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The provisions contained in Section 11 (5) of the Act at the relevant time provided as under: 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Where the candidate referred to in sub-section (3) fails to join the post of a teacher in such institution within the time allowed in the appointment letter or within such extended time as the manage ment may allow in this behalf, or where such candidate is other wise not available for appointment as such teacher, the officer or authority concerned may, on the request of the management, intimate fresh name or names from the panel forwarded by the Commission under sub- section (2) in the manner prescribed. " (emphasis supplied ). 30. This Court in its decision in the case of Kishori Raman Shiksha Samiti and others v. Regional Deputy Director of Education Agra and others, reported in (1994)1 UPLBEC 248 had clarified that the scheme and object for which Section 11 of the Act exists is to make available the selected candidate for appointment on the post of Principal or teacher in educational institution. It was observed that words otherwise not available as contained in sub-section (5) of Section 11 have very wide meaning covering all kinds of situation which may render a candidate not available for appointment on the post in question as teacher. This Court held that in sub-section (5) the word appointment denotes to make available for the work of teaching and as it has been used with word otherwise not available having far wide meaning it should also be given an understanding in wide sense so as to include a situa tion where candidate is not available for work as teacher. In the aforesaid case the recommendee whose name found place at serial No. 1 in the panel had in fact been appointed on the post of Principal but had died within a week of the appointment. In the aforesaid case the recommendee whose name found place at serial No. 1 in the panel had in fact been appointed on the post of Principal but had died within a week of the appointment. Rejecting the contention that with the appointment of the first recommendee the panel had exhausted, this Court upheld the claim of the recommendee whose name stood placed at serial No. 2 in the panel. The contention that with the appointment of the reconmendee placed at serial No. 1 the vacancy as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act had ceased to exist and the panel could not be utilised at all was also rejected holding that the vacancy with regard to the office or post for which the Commission had selected the candidate could not be deemed to have changed and it could not be assumed that any other vacancy had come into existence for filling whereof the panel could not be utilised. This Court relying upon an earlier decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Johari Devi Girls Inter College, Kanpur and another v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 634, held that the management of the College had no locus standi to object to the appointment of a candidate mentioned in panel and recommended by the Commission. 31. The aforesaid decision in the case of Kishori Raman Shiksha Samiti and others v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra and others (supra) was challenged in Special Appeal No. 780/1993 which was, however, dismissed on 17-2-1994. The decision in the special appeal in the case of Kishori Raman Shiksha Samiti and others v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra and others (supra) is reported in 1994 (24) ALR page 66. The Division Bench in its aforesaid decision has observed that there was 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. It was clearly observed by the Division Bench that the moment a candidate from the panel joins the post, the panel does not get exhausted and does not become non- est. It was clearly observed by the Division Bench that the moment a candidate from the panel joins the post, the panel does not get exhausted and does not become non- est. It was further observed that in the presence of the recommendation of the Commission, the Committee of Management had no power to make an ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act. 32. The submission of the contesting respondent that Devi Prasad Singh the first recommendee on the panel in question had joined the post on 31-12-1988 appears to be totally untenable in law. It may be noticed in this connection that in the writ petition it has been specifically averred in para graph 20 thereof that Devi Prasad Singh was holding the post of Principal of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh at the relevant time and in paragraph 21 of the writ petition it has been specifically asserted that Sri Devi Prasad Singh had resigned and left the post of Principal of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner a copy of which had been served on the contesting respondent on 27-2-1990 it has been asserted that Devi Prasad Singh had been lelieved of the charge of the post of Principal of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh on 26-6-1989 whereafter he had joined as Principal of Navodaya Vidyalaya. Along with the supplementary affidavit a letter issued by the Manager of Sri Krishna Geeta Pashtriya Inter College was filed as Anuexure-2 whereunder the Manager had informed the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh that Sri Devi Prasad Singh was absconding since November 1988 without submitting any leave application or handing over charge of his office with the result that an order suspending him from the post of Principal had been passed by the Committee of Management. In the counter-affidavit filed by Ramesh Chandra to the main writ petition it has been clearly asserted that the said counter-affidavit was being filed on behalf of the Nagar Palika, Inter College, Jaunpur, respondent No. 4 as well as the Committee of Management of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh. In the aforesaid counter-affidavit the assertions made in para graph 20 of the writ petition have not been controverted and the material allegations made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition have not been denied at all. In the aforesaid counter-affidavit the assertions made in para graph 20 of the writ petition have not been controverted and the material allegations made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition have not been denied at all. Further, the allegations made in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner have not been denied or controverted at all by filing any counter-affidavit. 33. In the circumstances, therefore, it is apparent that Devi Prasad Singh continued to hold the post of Principal of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh on 31-12-1988. Consequently there could be no occasion for him to join the post of Principal, Nagar Palika Inter College, Jauopur on 31-12- 1988 specially in the absence of a discharge certificate from his employer and even if it be assumed that he succeeded in taking overcharge of the office of the Principal on that date by subterfuge or on some misrepre sentation that could not be utilised in any manner whatsoever to the detriment of the petitioner specially taking into consideration the position in law which has been referred to herein above. 34. The provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act require that after the receipt of the panel the officer or authority concerned shall intimate the management of an institution in respect of which the vacancy was notified under sub-section (1) of Section 10, the names of candidates selected for appointment as teachers in the prescribed manner, sub-section (4) of Section 11 requires the management to issue appointment letter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the intimation to the candidate whose name has been intimated under sub-section (3 ). Sub-section (S) of Section 11 provides that where the candidate referred to in sub-section (3) fails to join the post of a teacher in such institution 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 as such teacher the officer or authority concerned may on the request of the management intimate fresh name or names from the panel forwarded by the Commission under sub-section (2) in the manner prescribed. 35. 35. In the present case the post of the Principal in question had to be filled up within the period prescribed by either appointing the first recommendee or on his failure by appointing the second recommendee. From the facts noticed herein above it is apparent that the first recommendee had not only failed to join the post but could not join inasmuch as he was continuing to hold the post of Principal of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh right upto 26-6-89 on which date he was relieved from the post of Principal, Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh. Under the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Board Act the recommendee of the Commission whose name is borne on the panel contemplated under Section 11 of the Act is recommended for being appointed as against a clear substantive vacancy. Under the scheme of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, a person cannot hold two permanent posts simultaneously. It is, therefore, obvious that the first recommendee continued to hold the post of Principal of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh up to 26-6-19s9. From the letter of the Manager of Sri Krishna Geeta Rashtriya Inter College, Azamgarh, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit, it is clear that the management of the said College had not relieved the first recommendee from the charge of the post of Principal of that College at all during the relevant period. In such a situation the contingency envisaged under Section 11 (5) of the Act whore-under the second recommendee on the panel could be appointed on account of the non-availability of the first recommendee for appointment stood clearly attracted. In this view of the matter also the claim of the second recommen dee, the present petitioner, could not be denied on the pretext as set up by the contesting respondent. 36. In this view of the matter also the claim of the second recommen dee, the present petitioner, could not be denied on the pretext as set up by the contesting respondent. 36. The provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act vest the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him with ample jurisdiction to bold an enquiry and if he is satisfied that the management has failed to fill in the vacancy in the post of a teacher which includes the Principal, denying the genuine claim of a person seeking appointment as against the said vacancy, in contravention of the provisions of the Act, in that case the aforesaid authority, at the instance of the aggrieved person is authorised to direct the manage ment to appoint the applicant on the post concerned with immediate effect and to pay him salary from the date specified in the order. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 further authorises the competent authority to pass appropriate orders for payment of the amount of salary due to the applicant which on a certificate issued by the said authority is recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue from the property belonging to or vested in the society or body running the institution. 37. The provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act, thus, take care of a situation where on account of the default of the management of an institution in appointing the eligible recommendee of the Commission as against the vacancy for the filling whereof the Commission had been approach ed which default results in depriving the person concerned of the benefits attached to the post against which appointment is to be made, as by virtue of the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 17 (3) of the Act, the competent authority can issue an order for the recovery of the salary and other allowances which the person concerned would have got but for the default of the management. This amount determined by the com petent authority is recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the assets belonging to or vesting in the society or body running the institution. The reason for this is obvious. The liability for payment of salary etc. This amount determined by the com petent authority is recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the assets belonging to or vesting in the society or body running the institution. The reason for this is obvious. The liability for payment of salary etc. , of a person appointed on regular basis on the post of a teacher which includes the post of Principal stands fastened on the State as contemplated under Sec tion 10 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees), Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1971 ). However, the liability in regard to the payment of salary to a person for the period elapsing between the date on which he becomes entitled to the appointment, which is not granted on account of the default of the manage ment, and the date on which such person is actually appointed, thus, rests exclusively on the society or the body which runs the institution and it is on account of its default that the entire amount payable to the person concerned from which he stands deprived on account of the default of the Society or the body running the institution is made payable by the society or the body con cerned out of its own assets. 38. It may, however, be observed that while determining the amount of salary due as contemplated under Section 17 (3) of the Act it has to be ensured that the person concerned is not paid any amount of salary etc. , twice over. If such person is getting any salary etc. , from the State on account of holding any post contemplated under the Act prior to his being actually installed in office as against the vacancy for which the panel is notified by the Commission in that case such person will be entitled only to the balance of the amount actually already received by him and the amount to which he will become entitled on the assumption of office m question. Which remain unpaid. 39. The provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act cost a statutory duty on the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders redressing the grievance of the aggrieved person. Which remain unpaid. 39. The provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act cost a statutory duty on the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders redressing the grievance of the aggrieved person. In the present case as has already been noticed hereinabove the petitioner had moved the competent authority invoking the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 17 of the Act. The said authority, however, has not taken any decision so far. In this connection it may be noticed that when an Act imposes a duty it is implied unless the contrary intention appears that the duty is to be performed from time to time as occasion requires. The Deputy Director of Education Vth Region, Varanasi, respondent No. 2, it is not disputed, stood vested with the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 17 of the Act. Consequently a statutory duty stood cast upon him to finally decide the representation of the petitioner and issue appropriate directions not only for appointing the petitioner on the post of the Principal jn question and to pay him salary from the date specified in the order but also pass requisite orders for the recovery of the salary etc. , to make good the deficiency etc. , the payment whereof stood withheld on account of the default of the management of the Society or body running the institution and ensure that the said amount is paid to the petitioner and monetary loss, if any made good by recovering the same from the assets of the Society or body running the institution. The respondent No. 2, however, appears to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him as he has not decided the applications moved by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act and the matter is kept lingering for all these years without any justifiable reason. 40. In view of the conclusions referred to hereinbefore the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent have no merit and are not acceptable. 41. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this Court. 42. In the result, the writ petition succeeds In part. 40. In view of the conclusions referred to hereinbefore the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent have no merit and are not acceptable. 41. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this Court. 42. In the result, the writ petition succeeds In part. Let a writ of mandamus issue requiring the respondent No. 2, the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi to determine and finally dispose of the applications of the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction contemplated under Section 17 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Board Act, 1982 and pass appropriate orders in respect of the claim of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The respondent No. 2 shall also determine the liability of the body running the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur in respect of the amount liable to be paid by it to the peti tioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 17 (3) of the Act within the same period. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .