M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. M. Sahai and Sri Anil Tewari for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4. ( 2 ) THE controversy in this case is as to, who is entitled to officiate as Principal of Rama Nand peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Badrika Ashram Karn Ghanta, Varanasi, which is affiliated to sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. ( 3 ) STATUTES 18. 14 and 18. 15 of the First Statutes of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya are extracted below : "18. 14. All disputes regarding seniority of teachers (other than the Principal) of the same college, shall be decided by the Principal of the college, who shall give reasons for the decision. Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of the Principal may prefer an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor within 60 days from the date of communication of such decision to the teacher concerned. If the vice-Chancellor disagrees from the Principal, he shall give reasons for such disagreement. 18. 15. All disputes regarding seniority of Principals of affiliated colleges shall be decided by the vice-Chancellor, who shall give reasons for the decision. Any Principal aggrieved by the decision of the Vice-Chancellor may prefer an appeal to the Executive Council within sixty days from the date of communication of such decision to the Principal concerned. If the Executive council disagrees with the Vice-Chancellor, it shall give reasons for such disagreement. " ( 4 ) STATUTE 18. 14 relates to disputes of seniority of teachers other than the Principal, whereas statute 18. 15 relates to dispute of seniority of Principal. In the present case although the dispute is between the two teachers as to who is senior, and hence ordinarily it should be decided in accordance with Statute 18. 14, but since there is no permanent Principal as the permanent principal has left the institution) the controversy is who is entitled to officiate as acting Principal. Statute 12. 22 states : "12. 22. In case of office of the Principal of an affiliated college falls vacant, the senior most teacher- of the college shall act as Principal until a duly selected Principal assumes office provided that such teacher shall draw the pay he is entitled to get on the post of the teacher and will not get the pay of the post of Principal during such period. " ( 5 ) WHERE the controversy is as to who can be appointed officiating Principal (pending regular selection of Principal), the application of Statute 18. 14 becomes impossible since there is no principal who can decide the dispute regarding seniority of teachers. Hence, in this state of affairs, we have to resort to Statute 18. 15 which has to be interpreted to mean that a dispute regarding seniority of teachers who claim to be officiating Principal is also to be decided in accordance with Statute 18. 15, i. e. , by the Vice-Chancellor. In our opinion this is the only reasonable interpretation which can be given, otherwise it will be impossible for the dispute of the present nature to be decided. Hence, we lay down the principle that in such cases, the dispute between teachers, who claim to be appointed as acting Principal shall be decided by the vice-Chancellor under Statute 18. 15. The petitioner claims that he is senior to respondent No. 6, who has been appointed as officiating Principal of the institution. The petitioner has already made a representation to the Registrar dated 15. 1. 2002 and 21. 2. 2000 (Annexures-6 and 8 to the writ petition ). The petitioner may make a representation to the Vice-Chancellor and if he does so, the same will be decided preferably within one month thereafter in accordance with law after hearing respondent Nos. 3 and 6 and others concerned by a speaking order. ( 6 ) WITH the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. .