R. K. MAHAJAN, J. This order will dispose of two Writ Petitions No. 19557of 19% and 20651 of 1966 and they pertain with respect to the controversy of same subject-matter i. e. non- interference in the working of duty as a Principal of the D. V. Post Graduate College, Jalaun and stoppage of salary from March, 1996 to May, 1996. These two writ petitions have raised a very interesting question and would show how management of U. P. Educational Institu tions and how the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission is fur "zoning and how the system with respect 01 regular recruit ment of the Principal has failed for want of indifferences and listless attitude of the management and the authorities who con trol the functioning of the colleges. This question also involves the interpretation of Statute 12. 20. Statute 12. 20 is quoted below for advantage: "12. 20.-When the office of the principal of an affiliated college falls vacant, the Management may appoint any teacher to officiate as Principal for a period of three months or until the appoint ment of a regular principal, whichever is earlier. If on or before the expiry of the period of three months, any regular principal is not appointed, or such a Principal does not assume office, the senior most teacher in the college shall officiate as Principal of such college until a regular principal is appointed. " 2. In these two writ petitions again the interesting point which arises is that if a senior most teacher including the present claimant who do not want to shoulder the responsibility when there is a trouble in the college and they are unable to control and a junior person offered himself to officiate as Principal and the officiated for four years and then the respondent No. 4 in writ peti tion No. 20651 of 1996 Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, who is now senior most person and previously in disturbed times he resigned and when the peace was restored he offers join and Management Committee gives him posting without regular selection and the present incumbent the petitioner is shunted out. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, who is now senior most person and previously in disturbed times he resigned and when the peace was restored he offers join and Management Committee gives him posting without regular selection and the present incumbent the petitioner is shunted out. How far it would be legal and justified to give him (Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava) appointment who is a senior most teacher when he ran from the war field like a coward man or like deserted soldier and later on when the peace was restored would it be in all fairness and propriety to give him appointment by the Management without a regular selection who had lacked the courage to handle the situation at that time. Is it a fair procedure and justice to remove an ad hoc officiating Principal after four years without a regular selection and substitute a person like a king who ran away when the Rome was burning and expressed his inability serve the institution in that capacity. Is he not stopped by his act and conduct and what discipline he would teach to the students and how he would control of the affairs. 3. These two writ petitions would per tain to these questions as well as other provisions of the Act. Law is not divorced from realities of life and while interpreting law it should be interpreted taking into con sideration new situation and to mould the relief as sometime Legislature or law makers do not foresee all possibilities/con tingencies. 4. Now coming over to the facts of the case. Resume of facts of Writ Petition No. 19557 of 1995 are as under: 5. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature temporary quashing the order dated 27-5-1996 (Annexure- No. 9) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order dated 31-5-1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 and praying further that the petitioner be paid salary in the grade or Principal which he has been getting since 23-5-1992 along with ar rears of salary for the months of March, April and May, 1996 and further prayer has been made for regularisation of service of the petitioner as Principal. 6. Annexure No. 9 is a letter from Dis trict Inspector of Schools to the Manage ment Committee that Dr. Govind Singh Niranjas bill would be passed according to the grade of Lecturer only and request was made to send relevant documents. 6. Annexure No. 9 is a letter from Dis trict Inspector of Schools to the Manage ment Committee that Dr. Govind Singh Niranjas bill would be passed according to the grade of Lecturer only and request was made to send relevant documents. An nexure No. 10 to the writ petition is a letter dated 31-5-19% from the Director, Higher Education, U. P. , Allahabad to the District Inspector of School, Jalaun informing him that officiating Principal has no right to get salary of Principal in the grade of Rs. 4,500 Rs. 7,300 and is only entitled for Lecturer grade and the order for recovery was also issued. Admittedly, he was getting his salary as Principal till the receipt of these two letters. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as officiating principal on 23-5-92 and per procedure his signatures were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools. He further claims that the used to prepare the bill, of teachers and employees in the capacity of the Principal. His name was published as Principal in the college bulletin. He was getting pay scale of Prin cipal till March, 1996. His appointment was approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 9. 11. 1992 on the recommendation of the Management Committee on 29-8-92 as per Annexure No. 5 of connected Writ Petition No. 20651 of 1996. There is no dispute on this fact. Petitioners submission is that non payment of salary and impugned orders are bad in law and he prays for quashing of the same. 7. In another Writ Petition No. 20651 of 1996 filed in July, 1996 the petitioner frayed for quashing the order dated 24-6-996 (Annexure No. 13 ). Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava who appointed as officiating Principal being the senior most Lecturer with the approval of the Management Com mittee till further orders. When Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava has resigned from the post of officiating Principal on account of family circumstances on 23-4-1991 the resignation of Shri Srivastava was accepted and thereafter the petitioner was appointed. Earlier to it Shri S. P. Saxena vide Annexure No. 16 has also refused to accept. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of new Principal on the ground that ap pointment of Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava is illegal and he cannot be appointed as Of ficiating Principal suddenly in order to punish the petitioner. Earlier to it Shri S. P. Saxena vide Annexure No. 16 has also refused to accept. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of new Principal on the ground that ap pointment of Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava is illegal and he cannot be appointed as Of ficiating Principal suddenly in order to punish the petitioner. He further chal lenged that the management has committed a mistake by appointing the respondent No. 4 as Principal. Shri R. G. Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 raised his claim when the peace and normalcy has returned. He fur ther submits that the petitioner wanted bet terment of the management in day to day affairs. He further submits that once a resig nation has been accepted the petitioner can not be refused unless regular. Selection takes place. 8. In both the cases Shri Srivastava filed counter-affidavit refuting the allega tions and claimed that the Management has right to appoint senior most teacher by vir tue of statute. 9. Shri V. M. Sahai, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner was appointed as Principal on ad hoc basis and he is much junior in seniority to Dr. Vijai Kumar Srivastava. He further submits that there is no bar on the manage ment to replace Dr. Govind Singh Niranjan, the petitioner, when the family circumstances of Sri Srivastava have changed. There is no bar to appoint seniormost person as a Principal till regular selection is made. Shri Sahai further submits that officiating Prin cipal has got no right to get pay of Principal and also no right to hold post as senior most enjoys better right than the junior most. Admittedly, Shri Vijai Kumar Srivastava is senior to the petitioner. 10. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length we are of the con sidered view that even an ad hoc employee who has officiated for more than four years, in the aforesaid circumstances, cannot be thrown out without following the fair proce dure or till the regular appointment takes place by the Commission. It is settled prin ciple of law of acquiescence that when a person has officiated for a long time in the stop-gap arrangement or due to slackness or other circumstances the regular rule is deemed to have been relaxe taking into con sideration the necessities of circumstances. It is settled prin ciple of law of acquiescence that when a person has officiated for a long time in the stop-gap arrangement or due to slackness or other circumstances the regular rule is deemed to have been relaxe taking into con sideration the necessities of circumstances. In service law, jurisprudence in some cases the Apex Court is of the view that officiation for a long time gives a right of regulansation. In this case at least he would not be given a right of regularisation but consider ing the circumstances the petitioner should not have thrown out till a regular appoint ment of the Principal is made. 11. Language of the Statute has been referred above. Since there was no willing Principal and Shri Srivastava did not accept the job may be the circumstances which have been mentioned in the application and may be on account of to run away from the disturbed conditions of the college. He can not all of a sudden claim for the post of Principal unless he is duly selected by the regular procedure which is mentioned under U. P. Higher Education and Service Commission Act. Statute should be inter preted in the light of the circumstances. The emphasis is that the Management has a right to appoint Principal for three months or until the appointment of the regular Prin cipal, whichever is earlier. It is relevant to quote Lord Dennings observation regard ing interpretation of the Statute in dispute. 12. Lord Denning in "the Discipline of Law" remarked that: "whenever a statute comes up for con sideration it must be remembered that it is not within human powers to foresee the manifold sets of facts which may arise, and, even if it were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. The English language is not an instrument of mathematical predsion. Our litera ture would be much the poorer if it were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticized. A Judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else, la ments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would certainly save the Judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. It would certainly save the Judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In the ab sence of it, when a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of funding the intention of Parliament, and he must do this not only from the language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social condi tions which gave rise to it, and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give force and life to the intention of the Legislature. That was clearly laid down by the resolution of the judges in Heydons case, and it is the safest guide today. Good practical advice on the subject was given about the same time by Plowden. . . . . . Put into homely metaphor it is this : A Judge should ask himself the question: If the makers of the Act had themselves come a cross this rock in the texture of it, how would they have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which it is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases. " 13. Coming over now to the procedure for appointment as mentioned in U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Section 11 of the Act deals with Powers and Duties of the Commission. Sec tion 12 of the Act deals with procedure for appointment of teachers, under Section 12 (2) of the Act the Management is under the duty to intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to be caused during the course of the ensuing academic year, to the Director at such time and in such man ner, as they may be prescribed. There is duty of the Commission under Section 13 of the Act to hold interview and to prepare merit List. Commission is to select competent persons after due test. Under Section 17 of the Act the Commission may require the Management of any college to submit such information or return regarding the matters referred to in Section 11. The Management is bound to send the information. Commission is to select competent persons after due test. Under Section 17 of the Act the Commission may require the Management of any college to submit such information or return regarding the matters referred to in Section 11. The Management is bound to send the information. It appears that the Management and commission are not working properly as lot of litigation is pending which has come to our notice. The Management and the commission cannot sleep over the matter in not filling the vacancies and to run the institution. This adhocism must be stopped as to improve the standard of the education to create dis cipline in the education and also to improve the standards. Rules and Acts have been framed but there is no strict compliance of the Act and statute due to local college politics. It is high time that the State Govt. should have looked into this problem in the light of above observation. We also do not accept the argument of Shri Sahai learned Counsel for the respondent that Shri Vijai Kumar Srivastava can join at any time and Shri Govind Singh Niranjan can be removed without following the fair procedure. It would amount to disincentive with regard to a person who is working for four years to keep the college in running condition. 14. So many authorities have been quoted by both sides. On the aspect of resig nation Shri Padia has relied upon Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and anothers, AIR 1972 SC 1302 in which it is held that service of a Government servant normally stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is ac cepted by the appropriate authority unless there is any law or statutory rule governing the conditions of the service to the contrary. This is a very well settled principle and in the facts and circumstances Shri Srivastavas resignation is only valid till regular appoint ment in his place is made. 15. Shri R. G. Padia has also relied upon 1993 (2) E. S. C. 477 (All), Virpal Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi and others. It relates to relinquishment of claim by a seniormost teacher for the stop- gap arrangement estops him from challenging the same. However, he is entitled to apply afresh at the time of selection made by the Commission. It relates to relinquishment of claim by a seniormost teacher for the stop- gap arrangement estops him from challenging the same. However, he is entitled to apply afresh at the time of selection made by the Commission. Shri Padia further relied upon 1993 UPLBEC 1951, Chandrika Prasad Upadhyaya v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others. Petitioner appointed as officiating Principal for a period till final selection is made. His appointment was ap proved by the D. I. O. S. Resolution was passed for removing the petitioner without affording any opportunity. Similarly in this case appointment has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal was not afforded opportunity. In fact there is viola tion of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as since the petitioner has enjoyed the status of principal which involved the dig nity and status and he could not have been thrown out without observing fair proce dure and principle of natural justice which is core spirit of Article 21 of the Indian Con stitution, as discussed above. 16. On the principles discussed above the removal of the petitioner is bad in law and is hereby quashed. Regarding salary when a person is officiated as a Principal and performed all the duties of Principal He can not be denied the salary for the respective post. He has been performing his duties as officiating Principal and is entitled to get all the emoluments of the officiating Principal till regular selection is made. 17. Shri Sahai has also relied upon the following authorities: (i) 1988 UPLBEC 397, Kumarimadhu Chauhan \. District Inspector of Schools. (ii) JT1996 (6) SC 26, State of Punjab and others \. Tara Singh Shahi. 18. The aforesaid authorities quoted by Shri Sahai are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the facts of every case are not similar to another case. 19. We would like to quote the excerpt from the book "the Discipline of Law" by Lord Denning at page 314 on precedents: system of case law. This has evolved by broadening down from prece dent to precedent. By standing by previous decisions, we have kept the common law on a good course. All that I am against is its too rigid application a rigidity which insists that a bad prece dent must necessarily be followed. This has evolved by broadening down from prece dent to precedent. By standing by previous decisions, we have kept the common law on a good course. All that I am against is its too rigid application a rigidity which insists that a bad prece dent must necessarily be followed. I would treat it as you would a path through the woods. You must not let the path become too overgrown. You must cut out the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and brambles. My plea is simply to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which would im pede it. " 20. To conclude we are of the view that all the impugned notifications in both the writ petitions are quashed and the direction is given to the management to continue Dr. Govind Singh Niranjan as officiating Prin cipal till a regular selection takes place. The Commission is directed to complete the process of regular selection within four months after a week of receipt of certified copy of this order. The management is to send requisition within a week of receipt of the certified copy and the copy be supplied within twenty-four hours to the parties. It may be clarified that direction to expedite the process of selection has been passed to avoid indiscipline in the institution and remove uncertainty from the minds of the teachers. Right to education has been declared by Apex Court to be fundamental right in the light of Art. 21 of the Constitu tion of India. The Committee of manage ment, the High Education Commission and the State Govt. are answerable to the public under the doctrine of public-account ability if they fail to monitor the proceed ings of vacancies under the Act. All of them would be held responsible for dereliction and misfeasance of duty. The State Govern ment through the Directorate of Education should not hesitate to withdraw recognition of the College if necessary steps are not taken by the Management to fill the post within time allowed This is absolutely necessary to maintain discipline and good standard in the education. It may not be forgotten by all the authorities that they can be saddled with the special and compen satory costs if they do not perform statutory duties with promptitude. 21. It may not be forgotten by all the authorities that they can be saddled with the special and compen satory costs if they do not perform statutory duties with promptitude. 21. A copy of this judgment be sent to Secretary (Education), Secretariate, Luck-now for information and necessary action. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the W. P. No. 20651 of 1996 is allowed with the direction that the respondents will not interfere with the working of the petitioner as officiating-Principal of D. V. P. G. College, Jalaun-at-Orai till regularly selected can didate is appointed and if charge has been taken from the petitioner, it shall be handed over to him forthwith, and, Writ Petition No. 19557 of 1996 is allowed with the direc tion that the petitioner shall be paid all the emoluments of officiating-principal for the period of his working. 23. The parties will bear their costs. Petition allowed. .