ORDER M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.—This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.4.2004. We have heard Sri Bhim Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijay Singh for respondent No. 5. The facts of the case have been given in detail in the impugned judgment, and here we are not repeating the same. 2. We find no merit in this special appeal. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 , the senior- most teacher in the Institution is normally entitled to be appointed as Principal on ad hoc basis till regular selection by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board. 3. However, since respondent No. 5 was suspended, hence the appellant was appointed ad hoc Principal. Thereafter the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 7.7.2001 disapproved the suspension order under Section 16 (g) (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. That order was challenged before the learned single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition. 4. In our opinion, the writ petition itself was not maintainable on behalf of another teacher of the Institution. In our opinion, when the District Inspector of Schools disapproved the order of suspension, then only the Committee of Management can be said to have a grievance. The appellant had no locus standi. 5. In this case the Committee of Management never challenged the disapproval order of the District Inspector of Schools. Hence we are of the opinion that the writ petition was not maintainable at all before the learned single Judge. 6. Apart from that, we have seen that the allegations against respondent No. 5 was that he was in jail from 25.11.1972 to 28.2.1974 in a case under Section 395, I.P.C. It is admitted that the respondent No. 5 was acquitted in that criminal case. The learned single Judge has hence rightly held that such an old incident (in which also the respondent No. 5 was acquitted) could not be the basis of suspending respondent No. 5. 7. Thus, there is no force in this special appeal. It is dismissed. 8. Interim order is vacated. 9. The learned single Judge has hence rightly held that such an old incident (in which also the respondent No. 5 was acquitted) could not be the basis of suspending respondent No. 5. 7. Thus, there is no force in this special appeal. It is dismissed. 8. Interim order is vacated. 9. Before parting with this case we make it clear that we are not deciding the question as to who was the senior-most teacher in the institution. That issue should be decided by the concerned authorities under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulations.