JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---One Mr. Mule who was working as Head Master in respondent No. 4- Society's School in Buldana district in the name and style of Shri Sarasvati Vidyalaya, Deulgaon Sakkarsha and that Head Master came to be removed from the post. This gave rise for an action to appoint somebody else in his place. That is why the present petitioner came in picture as he came to be appointed in place of said Mr. Mule. This happened on 25-6-1975 and he continued to be so till the order came to be passed questioning his appointment and directing the Society to recover the amount from him. The Society came before this Court against that order by way of a writ petition, where a direction came to be issued directing the said authorities to give an opportunity of being heard both the said Society as well as to the present petitioner, who was one of the petitioners in the said earlier petition. The Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati, carried out the order given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 205/84 and passed the impugned order as per Annexure-H, page 23 onwards. He held that as the question of removal of Shri Mule from the post of Head Master was pending before the different authorities by way of litigation including the writ petition filed in this Court, the vacancy that is arisen because of his removal cannot be said to be a clear vacancy. The said writ petition of Shri Mule was Writ Petition No. 520/79. 2. Apparently, Shri Mule succeeded before this Court as the respondent No. 4 Society carried out the matter before the Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. (C) No. 10806/89, where orders came to be passed as per Annexure R-1 page 43. 3. Annexure R-1, page 43 order clearly indicates that the said Mr. Mule respondent No. 5 in the said SLP has reached the age of superannuation and, therefore, the appellant-Society before the Supreme Court was directed to pay certain amount in full and final settlement. If, at all, there being any question of vacancy arisen, it will be on and after the date on Shri Mule attaining the age of superannuation. 4. Till then, according to the said Deputy Director, nobody could have been appointed on the post of Head Master as there was no clear vacancy. If, at all, there being any question of vacancy arisen, it will be on and after the date on Shri Mule attaining the age of superannuation. 4. Till then, according to the said Deputy Director, nobody could have been appointed on the post of Head Master as there was no clear vacancy. This concept of clear vacancy can be clearly understood as mentioned by Shri Mule in his litigation is kept in mind. On his succeeding in his writ petition, obviously, his termination will have to be set aside and he will have to be reinstated. When somebody expected to be appointed on the said post considering it to be vacant, obviously, there could not be a question of reinstatement because the post is not vacant. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the said Deputy Director and conclusions which he has reached being thus justified, there is no reason for us to interfere in the same. This will have a direct consequence on the question of recovery of the amount paid. While considering this question, the said order of the Supreme Court may also borne in mind where-under the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was directed to be paid to said Mr. Mule in full and final settlement. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 on being asked by us has confirmed pursuant to the said order payment was made and reimbursement was sought by way of grant from the Government. Further, he informs us that the State Government has in fact reimbursed the Society in this regard. 5. On one and the same post, there is, therefore, no question of two individuals either working or drawing salary. That the present petitioner has already been declared to be working on the post which was not clearly vacant. In the absence of a clear vacancy, if, he has worked, at best he would be an in charge Head Master. This aspect was considered in the impugned order while considering the request of the Society to allow Mr. Ajbe to act for the administrative purpose including drawing of bills. This has been granted by the Deputy Director in the said impugned order. 6. This aspect was considered in the impugned order while considering the request of the Society to allow Mr. Ajbe to act for the administrative purpose including drawing of bills. This has been granted by the Deputy Director in the said impugned order. 6. Once it is held that his appointment was not on the clear vacancy, it is obvious that all throughout he has worked as an in charge Head Master and, therefore, so far as the recovery is concerned, that score of the order will also have to be sustained. At the same time, we clarify that whatever admissible allowances to an in charge Head Master are permissible under the rules, shall be taken into consideration while fixing the sum of recovery or what has been paid in the scale of Head Master. The difference between the two, viz. scale of a teacher with admissible allowance as in-charge Head Master and Head Master as the petitioner has certainly worked and whatever is paid in consequence thereof, can be recovered from him and that process may be started by the authorities concerned. The petitioner shall be given intimation as and when the sum is determined, the petitioner shall repay the same and he is permitted to avail of twelve equal monthly instalments, if he so chooses. On his exercising the choice, the said amount will be recovered in twelve equal monthly instalments from his monthly salary, for which purpose, the respondent No. 4-Society shall be free to deduct the same from the salary bills. So far as petition is concerned, it fails and accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 7. Before parting with the matter, we may observe that the Deputy Director, in his impugned order, also stated that the appointment on the post of Head Master has to be carried out in accordance with rules after considering the claim of all eligible candidates. The respondent No. 4 Society may do so and while doing so also consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. Rule discharged.