JUDGMENT By the Court—This is an appeal from an interim order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Agarwala on the 10th of April 2006. 2. His Lordship has entertained the writ petition of the appellant, which is a Committee of Management, challenging the decision of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board refusing to approve of the order of dismissal which was passed by the appellant as against the erstwhile Principal Km. Sarojini Barsoul (On our decision, it would not be right to describe her as on date as ‘erstwhile’). 3. However, his Lordship has not been pleased to stay the operation of disapproval which is dated 18.1.2006. It has been further ordered that in case the Principal is not allowed to join, the Committee of Management will pay her salary. 4. The Principal is to retire with the expiry of the 30th of June, 2006. For about four years past, she has not discharged her duties as Principal of the College. This has happened, although the Board never approved of the dismissal order passed by the Committee of Management. Once earlier the earlier order of disapproval was challenged before the Court by the Committee of Management by way of an earlier writ and orders were passed both by an Hon’ble Single Judge and by the Division Bench. At that time, the first Court ordered on the 20th of November, 2001 that the Principal “will not be insisted to perform her duties.” 5. Shri Shailendra learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this meant that the Principal will not have the option of insisting on being allowed to perform her duties. The words certainly do not say so, but he submits that the other portion of the same order mentions that it is not appropriate to allow a Principal, under a charge of financial embezzlement, to be allowed to perform her duties. 6. Be that as it may, when the matter went up to the Court of appeal on the earlier occasion, the Division Bench ordered that the seniormost Lecturer of the Institution would perform the day to day management but the erstwhile Principal “will be her remuneration”. Parties accept that these words must meant “will be paid her remuneration’’. However, there is no agreement amongst the parties as to who would pay the remuneration. The order also does not specify it. Parties accept that these words must meant “will be paid her remuneration’’. However, there is no agreement amongst the parties as to who would pay the remuneration. The order also does not specify it. It so happens that the State Government has been paying the salary of the non-working private respondent Principal from 4.1.2002, when the order of the Court of appeal was passed until in present period. 7. The appellant raised a point of natural justice and has sought to show us the facts indicating that the Commission is not prepared to give the Committee of Management a fair or full scale hearing. 8. We do not enter into these matters at present since the writ itself is pending and the issue whether the Commission’s order for disapproval passed in January 2006 will be set-aside or not is, at least partly, dependent on how this argument, made on behalf of the appellant is dealt with by the Hon. Single Judge. 9. One thing is quite clear to us, at all events, that until now the Commission has refused to take a very serious view of the allegations for embezzlement made by the Committee against the Principal. We have been told of one or two heads of alleged embezzlement but the matter did not at all appear to be clear to us. 10. In these circumstances, the disapproval order of the board not being set-aside or stayed, the legal position simply is that the Principal is where she was before the charge-sheet was issued to her. In other words, under the law, she is entitled to work as Principal, even it be for only a month or two. If for reasons of management, the Committee is averse to letting her have her entitlement on the basis of the order of the Commission and the refusal of the writ Court to pass any order of stay in regard to that disapproval of the Board, then and in that event, it is only fair and just that the management pay her salary for the period she is not allowed to work and not the State once again. Our order and observations however worded, are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties either in the pending writ matter or in any other proceedings including interim proceedings in the said very same writ. 11. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ———