N. L. GANGULY, J. By writ petition No. 7879 of 1995, filed by Shri Lal Mani Misra, the order of the District Basic Education Officer dated 22nd March 1995 has been challenged. In the institution there was an order single operation previously. The said single operation order was recalled and it was directed that payment of salary shall be made as was done prior to the single operation order. 2. By writ petition No, 4203 of 1991 filed by Shri Raghvendra Ptasad Dubey, a writ. of mandamus was claimed by him directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in higher grade for the post of Headmaster w. e. f. 1-7-1987. Yet another writ petition No. 9296 of 1995 was filed by Shri Raghvendra Prasad Dubey challenging the order dated 18-2-1995 passed by the Basic Shiksha Education Adhikari, Jaunpur, further praying to quash the attestation of the signature of opposite party Shri Lal Mani Misra of the said petitioner. All these writ petitions arise out of the controversy concerning the same institution regarding office of the Headmaster, payment of salary and by whom the bill be signed. In view of these facts it was directed by this Court that all these writ petitions be connected together and decided by one judgment. The parties have exchanged their affidavits and counter-affidavit. In writ petition No. 9296 of 1995 an objection has been raised by the contesting respondent that earlier writ petition No, 4203 of 1991 filed by the same petitioner in pending. The second petition filed by the same petitioner in respect of relief akin to the one claimed in the earlier petition, is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. In writ petition No. 4203 an application for impleadment has been filed by Shri Lal Mani Misra. There is no opposition to the said impleadment. This application stands allowed. I do not consider it necessary to dismiss the writ petition No. 9296 of 1995. I am finally deciding all the writ petitions to day be this common judgment. 3. The writ petition No. 7879 of 1995 is leading in the connected writ petitions. This is an admitted fact that Raj Narain Purva Madhyamik Yidhyalaya, Shankarganj, Jaunpur was established in 1970 as a Junior High School. It was granted temporary recognition in the year 1971 as Junior High School. 3. The writ petition No. 7879 of 1995 is leading in the connected writ petitions. This is an admitted fact that Raj Narain Purva Madhyamik Yidhyalaya, Shankarganj, Jaunpur was established in 1970 as a Junior High School. It was granted temporary recognition in the year 1971 as Junior High School. The permanent recognition was granted as Junior High School in 1979 and the institution Junior High School was brought under the list of grant-in-aid in 1983 for payment of salary to the teachers and staffs of Junior High School under the Payment of Salary Act Junior High School Act, 1978. 4. It is also admitted that the institution was upgraded as a High School in the year 1989. The institution though upgraded as High School, it was not brought in the list of grant-in-aid under the payment of Salary Act, 1971 (U. P. Act 21 of 1971 ). The institution confirmed to enjoy the benefit of grants-in-aid under. 1978 Act. 5. It is worth mentioning that after the institution was upgraded as High School for some reasons or the other Shri Lal Mani Misra, who was admittedly Headmaster of the Junior High School prior to up gradation was suspended. He continued to remain under suspension and on the date of filing of the writ petition, by the impugned order, challenged in these writ petitions, Shri Lal Mani Misra had ceased to be under suspen sion and he was working as assistant teacher in the institution. It is worth mentioning that the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur by order dated 31-1-1995 asked the Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution for handing over charge of the office of the Headmaster to Shri Lal Mani Misra. It was also averred in the said order that since Shri Lal Mani Misra was approved Headmaster of the institution, his signature should have been obtained on the payment of salarys bills show-cause notice calling for explanation of the Manager of the Committee of Management was issued by the District Basic Education Officer. By another letter dated 1-3-1995 the District Basic Education Officer has wrote to the Manager, Committee of Management of the institution to furnish the details about the registration of the institution and also call for an explanation for ignoring the directions and departmental orders passed, from time to time. By another letter dated 1-3-1995 the District Basic Education Officer has wrote to the Manager, Committee of Management of the institution to furnish the details about the registration of the institution and also call for an explanation for ignoring the directions and departmental orders passed, from time to time. It was complained that the Manager of the Committee of Management was not giving the reply to the authority. It was said that on account of in action on the part of the Manager of the Committee of Management, the payment of salary to the teachers and staff was not being property made. It was said that in case the orders of the department are not complied with the order for single operation shall be passed in the institution. The District Basic Educa tion Officer by order dated 6-3-1995 directed the Accounts Officer, District Basic Education Department to take over the institution under the single operation for payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the institution. The actual order for single operation was communicated by letter dated 13-3-1995. Those orders were given effect to by the Distract Basic Education Officer. The signature of Shri Lal Mani Mistra was in the meantime attested by the District Basic Education Officer on 1-3-1995. It appears that certain fee bills were also prepared under his signature. The District Basic Education Officer by order dated 22- 3-1995 revoked the single operation order and directed that the payment of salary shall be made as before the passing of the single operation order. This order has been challenged by Sri Lai Mani Misra. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri P. G. Padia vehemently submitted that this order revoking the single operation order was passed with out any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. This amounts to violation of rule of natural justice and as such the order cannot, be sustains for a moment. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the contesting opposite party Shri Raghvendra Prasad Dubey. Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit is an, order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 31st July, 1990. This order appears to have been passed under Chapter II Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the contesting opposite party Shri Raghvendra Prasad Dubey. Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit is an, order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 31st July, 1990. This order appears to have been passed under Chapter II Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Ashok Khare and Shri P. G. Mishra pointed out that Shri Raghvendra Prasad Dubey is M. A. and B. Ed and acted Incharge Headmaster, He had been attesting the salarys bill previously. He is qualified for being appointed as head of the institution according to the Regulation 4 of U P. Secondary Schools (Removal of Difficulties) Orders, 1981. After bearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the contention of the parties is not about Payment of Salary on attesta tion of signature. The real bone of contention is as to who is the parson competent to officiate as Headmaster of the High School after its up-gradation. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Ashok Khare placed the amended provision of Appendix-A of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act provides educational qualification for head of the institution which is quoted as under : "head of Institution.- (I) Trained M. A. or M. Sc. or M. Com. Or M. Sc. (Ag) or any post-graduate or other degree equivalent thereto awarded by a body referred to in first paragraph above with an experience of teaching for atleast four years in a training institution recognished by the Department or in a University or Institution of a Degree College affiliated to such University or Institution referred to in first paragraph above or in Classes IX to XII of an institution recognised by the Board of affiliated to the Boards of other States or of similar institutions whose examinations are recognised by the Board or of having at least four years experience as a trained graduate Headmaster of Junior High School by the Departmental provided al-;o that he/ she is not below 30 years in age. " 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. R. G. Padia submitted that the order of the District Inspector of Schools (Annexure-I to the counter affidavit dated 31st July, 1990) is patently wrong so far the petitioner is concerned. " 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. R. G. Padia submitted that the order of the District Inspector of Schools (Annexure-I to the counter affidavit dated 31st July, 1990) is patently wrong so far the petitioner is concerned. He submitted that the provisions of Chapter-II Regulations of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act concerned teachers and not the Headmaster. The relevant provision of Chapter-II Regulation 4 is quoted as under : "where any Junior High School is recognised as a High School under Section 7, a permanent or temporary teacher of such school, possessing the minimum qualifications under Regulation 1, shall be deemed to be permanent or temporary teacher, as the case may be, of such High School, provided that the services of a temporary teacher who is not selected for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations shall be dispensed with after giving him one months notice in that behalf of one months pay in view of such notice. " 7. The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on Regulation 23 of Chapter II which is quoted as under : "a Headmaster of a High School who is not found fit for promotion as Principal of the upgraded intermediate College or a Head master of a Junior High School who on its being raised as a High School, is not selected by the Selection Committee for the post of the Headmaster of upgraded High School, shall be retained as an assistant teacher on the highest post for which he is qualified, provided that his pay-scale shall not be reduced. " . 8. Dr. R. O. Padia laid stress over the amended provision of appendix-A already quoted above. He submitted that a Headmaster of Junior High School, who is not a post graduate but is a trained graduate working as a Headmaster of a Junior High School recognised by the department, provided he/she is not below the age of 30 years, eligible to be permitted to function as officiating Headmaster of the High School till regular selection is made by the Commission for appointment of Headmaster of the High School. 9. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I consider it appro priate that although the impugned order revoking single operation order was passed without giving a notice or opportunity to Shri Lal Mani Misra needs no interference in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is admitted that the institution is a High School approved and recognised, by the Board and it is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act and the provisions, of U. P. Intermediate Education Act are applic able. There is no controversy or doubt about it. The only question is whether payment of salary can be made out of the fund of the maintenance grant which was paid to the institution as a Junior High School which is still being done. If the institution has become a High School the District Basic Educa tion Officer has a limited scope of authority so far as the payment of salary etc. is concerned to the teachers and staff who were previously the teachers and staff of the Junior High School and who are teachers and staff of the upgraded High School now. Thus, the District Basic Education Officer has to respect and comply with the direction and orders for approval and recogni tion etc. in respect of Headmaster etc. which may be passed by the District Inspector of Schools according to the provisions of Chapter-II of the Regula tions framed under the Act. I am thus satisfied and consider it appropriate that all these writ petitions be disposed of with the direction that the District Inspector of Schools shall decide as to who is eligible to function as officiating Headmaster of the institution according to the regulations and provisions of the Act, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The District Inspector of Schools shall decide the question of approving the person whether Shri Lal Mani Mishra or Raghvendra Prasad Dubey is the person eligible for the post of Officiating Headmaster of the institution till regular selection from the Commission is made. The District Inspector of Schools shall give a notice to the concerned parties before passing order in this respect and shall hear them also. The District Inspector of Schools shall give a notice to the concerned parties before passing order in this respect and shall hear them also. So far as the position of pay ment of salary to the teacher and staff list concerned out of the maintenance grant in concerned the District Inspector of Schools shall see the payment is made under the single operation through the Account Officer of Basic Educa tion department till orders are passed about the officiating Headmaster of the institution. After the orders are passed by the District Inspector of Schools approving the person as competent to be appointed as Headmaster of the Institution the District Basic Education Officers shall take note of it and such persons signature shall be attested so far as the payment of salary of teachers and staff out of the maintenance grant under the Act of 1978 is concerned. 10. With these observations this writ petition is dismissed. 11. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .