Judgment D.S. Sinha, J. (1) HEARD Dr. R. G. Padia and Sri R. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tej Ram, learned standing counsel, Sri D. S. M. Tripathi, Sri Anil Tewari and Sri G. K. Singh, holding brief of Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. (2) UNDISPUTED facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties before the court are these : that Mahamana Madan Mohan Malaviya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Bhatpar Rani, Deoria (hereinafter called the institution) is a college imparting education upto post graduate level and is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi (for short the University), the respondent No. 4, and is governed by and subject to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act) and the First Statutes of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as the Statutes) ; that consequent upon retirement of the Principal of the Institution on 30th June, 1985, the post of Principal fell vacant on 1st July, 1985 that the petitioner being the senior most teacher of the college, was handed over charge of the office of the Principal to act as Principal that thereafter the managing committee of the Institution proceeded to hold selection to select a regular incumbent to fill up the vacancy and selected Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, the respondent No. 6, and sought approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University regarding selection and for appointment of the respondent No. 6, that by the communication dated 18th September, 1982, a copy whereof is Annexure-7 to the petition, the Registrar of the University intimated to the manager of the Institution that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6, as Principal of the Institution, was approved by the Vice-Chancellor and that following the approval granted by the Vice-Chancellor, the respondent No. 6 joined the Institution for the purpose of taking over as Principal. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor of the University to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 and invokes the assistance of this court for the purposes of enforcing his statutory right to act on the post of Principal for so long as a duly selected Principal does not assume the office. (3) FOR the respondent, it is urged that the respondent No. 6 is a duly selected candidate for the post of Principal of the Institution and is, therefore, entitled to function as such and that the petitioner is not entitled to continue to act as Acting Principal. (4) FOR the purposes of proper appreciation and effective adjudication of the controversy raised herein, It is apposite to notice the provisions of Sections 2 (c), 2 (g), 12, 13 and 30 of the Act and also of Section 2 (18) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the State Universities Act). Section 2 (c) of the Act defines "college" to mean an affiliated or associated college to which the privileges of affiliation or recognition, as such has been granted by a University, and {includes a college maintained by a local authority but does not include a college maintained by the State Government or a college imparting medical education. Sub-section (g) of Section 2 provides that other words used and not defined in the Act but defined in the State Universities Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act. Subsection (18) of Section 2 of the State Universities Act defines the expression "teacher" to mean a person employed for imparting instruction or guiding or conducting research in the University or in an Institute or in a constituent, affiliated or associated college and includes a Principal or Director. 6. Section 12 of the Act which provides procedure for appointment of teacher of the college reads thus : "12. Procedure far appointment of teachers.-(1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. (2) The management shall intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies, likely to be caused during the course of ensuing academic year, to the Director at such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed. Explanation. -The expression "academic year" means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1. (3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject-wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. Explanation. -The expression "academic year" means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1. (3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject-wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. (4) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of a college shall be such, as may be determined by regulations : Provided that the Commission shall with a view to inviting talented persons give wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified to it under sub-section (3): Provided further that the candidates shall be required to indicate their order of preference for the various colleges vacancies wherein have been advertised." (5) SECTION 13 of the Act is as below: "13. Recommendation of Commission.-(1) The Commission shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancies to it under sub-section (3) of SECTION 12, hold interview (with or without written examination) of the candidates and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of candidates found most suitable in each subject as may be, so far practicable, twenty-five percent more than the number of vacancies in that subject. Such names shall be arranged in order of merit shown in the interview, or in the examination and interview if an examination is held. (2) The list sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission. (3) The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed manner, to the order of preference if any Indicated by the candidates under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of SECTION 12, intimate to the management the name of a candidate from the list referred to in sub-section (1) for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under sub-section (2) of SECTION 12. (4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under sub-section (3) of SECTION 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy. (4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under sub-section (3) of SECTION 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy. (5) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions, where to abolition of any post of teacher in any college, services of the person substantively appointed to such post is terminated the State Government may make suitable order for his appointment in a suitable vacancy, whether notified under sub-section (3) of SECTION 12 or not in any other college, and thereupon the Director shall intimate to the management accordingly. (6) The Director shall send a copy of the Intimation made under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) to the candidate concerned. (6) SECTION 30 of the Act declares that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding to the contrary contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder. It is not in dispute that the Institution is an affiliated college to which the privilege of affiliation has been granted by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya which is, indisputably, a University. (7) THE expression 'teacher' used in Section 12 of the Act has not been defined by the Act. Therefore, the definition of the expression "teacher" given in sub-section (18) of Section 2 of the State Universities Act shall apply by virtue of sub-section (g) of Section 2 of the Act. A combined reading of the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the Act and 2 (18) of the State Universities Act make it abundantly clear that the expression "teacher" used in Section 12 of the Act will also include in its ambit a "Principal". Thus, the procedure for appointment of a teacher given in Section 12 of the Act shall apply to the appointment of a Principal of the college also. (8) SUB-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act prescribes that every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of the Act and declares that every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. (8) SUB-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act prescribes that every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of the Act and declares that every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. It is not in dispute that in making selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 to the post of Principal of the Institution, the procedure prescribed by Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act was not followed. (9) SECTIONS 12 and 13 envisage that selection of the candidate for appointment to the post of a teacher, including Principal, shall be made by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission, constituted under Section 3 of the Act, in the manner prescribed and after following the procedure laid down therein. Upon selection by and on the recommendation of the Commission, the management of the college is under a statutory duty to issue appointment letter to the selected and recommended candidate, as provided in Section 14 of the Act. (10) TO justify the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 and approval thereof by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance upon the provisions of the various statutes contained in Part II of Chapter XI of the Statutes relating to qualifications and appointment of teachers in the affiliated colleges. In the opinion of the court, the provisions relied upon the learned counsel are of no avail in view of the mandatory provision of Section 30 of the Act which stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding to the contrary contained in the State Universities Act or Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder and the fact that the Statutes relied upon have been made under the State Universities Act. Selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 on the post of Principal of the Institution having not been made in accordance with the provisions of, Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act and having been made in contravention thereof is, therefore, held void, as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. (11) THE impugned approval of the Vice-Chancellor communicated through the communication dated 18th September. (11) THE impugned approval of the Vice-Chancellor communicated through the communication dated 18th September. 1992 to the manager of the Institution is of no consequence and cannot validate the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 on the post of Principal of the college. THE approval as contained in the communication dated 18th September, 1992, under the circumstances, deserves to be quashed. (12) FURTHER, selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 being void, the post of the Principal of the Institution shall be deemed to be vacant in the eye of law; and in view of the provisions contained in Statute 12.22 occurring in Part-IV of Chapter XII of the Statute the senior most teacher of the college, who, indisputably, is the petitioner, shall be obliged and entitled to act as Principal. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The selection and approval of the respondent No. 6 on the post of Principal of the college as contained in communication dated 18th September, 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 7' to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to act as Principal of the Institution until a duly selected Principal assumes the office.