JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The examination form of the daughter of Sh. Sundar Singh Chauhan was not forwarded to the District School Inspector. It is said that for that reason, she could not appear in the examination. The complaint was filed against the Principal of the college as well as Government of Uttar Pradesh, as it then was, through, District Magistrate/Collector, Uttarkashi. The complaint was allowed and the opposite' party No.2, State of Uttar Pradesh, as it was, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation along with interest. 2. No appeal has been filed by the .State of Uttar Pradesh. The Judgment, therefore, becomes final against the opposite party No.2. 3. The order of payment has been made only against the opposite party No.2. But in the last line of the concluding judgment, it has been directed that if the state desires, it may recover the amount from opposite party No.1. 4. The opposite party No. 1 is said to be the Principal. No order have been passed against him in the personal capacity. It has been passed against him as Principal. The argument of the appellant who was an opposite party in the complaint is that on the relevant date he has been attached with the office of the District Inspector of Schools and he was not holding the charge of the Principal. Therefore, there is no his liability. The argument is correct to that extent that if the appellant was not in the office and there was no negligence on his personal part, he cannot be held liable. In these circumstances, if the state wants the recovery should be made from the Principal, he who was incharge on the relevant date is liable if the present appellant was not Principal, no recovery should be made from him. There should be an inquiry by the State before such a realisation. That is an internal matter between the state and the Principal. With these observations, the appeal is hereby disposed of. ORDER