JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar learned Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Pratap, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.6.2008 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Basti, by which Sri Veer Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 4, has been appointed as Officiating Principal of the College and a direction has been issued to hand over the charge. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of various irregularities and the charges of embezzlement Sri Veer Bahadur Singh was suspended and an F.I.R. has also been lodged against him. He submitted that the suspension order has not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools. A detailed inquiry was made and a proposal for removal of Sri Veer Bahadur Singh from service was passed, which was referred to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti. On consideration of entire materials, the District Inspector of Schools, Basti vide letter dated 31.5.2005 has referred the same to the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Seva Chayan Board, Allahabad for final decision. The matter is still pending. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 is not co-operating thus the decision could not be taken by the Board. He submitted that while considering the case of appointment of Sri Veer Bahadur Singh as Officiating Principal, the DIOS has made a wrong observations and the fact that the proposal of removal from service on the basis of enquiry and various allegations is subjudice before the Board has not been considered. He further submitted that the matter is pending before the Board while the DIOS has observed that the entire allegations made by the Committee of Management have been diluted. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the DIOS has not approved the proposal for suspension and the final report has also been submitted by the police in the FIR. However, he has not disputed that the proposal for removal of respondent No. 4 from service is subjudice before the Board. He submitted that until the proposal of Committee of Management is approved, the respondent No. 4 cannot be subjected to punishment and his claim of being appointed as an Officiating Principal cannot be denied. However, he has not disputed that the proposal for removal of respondent No. 4 from service is subjudice before the Board. He submitted that until the proposal of Committee of Management is approved, the respondent No. 4 cannot be subjected to punishment and his claim of being appointed as an Officiating Principal cannot be denied. Learned Counsel for the respondent further stated that there is no material to show that the petitioner’s Committee of Management is recognised. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, in my opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable. In the impugned order the DIOS has not considered that the proposal for removal of respondent No. 4 from service on the basis of the enquiry report and the allegations is prejudice for consideration by the Board. The matter has been referred by DIOS itself to Board vide letter dated 31.5.05, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact, the observation of the DIOS in the impugned order that the allegation made by Prabandh Samiti against the petitioner has been diluted is not correct. In this view of the matter, the order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 7. The DIOS is to consider the matter afresh after taking into the account that the proposal of the Committee of Management for the removal of respondent No. 4 from service on the basis of allegations made against him, the inquiry report is subjudice for approval before the Board and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4. 8. It may be mentioned here that the post of Principal is a very important and responsible post in an institution. The character, conduct, behaviour of Principal has impact over the entire institution including the students who are said to be future of our country. Therefore the conduct of Principal should be unblemished beyond doubt, full of integrity, fair impartial and be an example to the students and others. Therefore in the appointment of Principal seniority should not be sole criteria but other factor may also be considered. A person of a little doubtful character may not be given charge of Principal in the interest of institution and students. Therefore in the appointment of Principal seniority should not be sole criteria but other factor may also be considered. A person of a little doubtful character may not be given charge of Principal in the interest of institution and students. The interest of institution and students is paramount and should always be taken care then only the purpose and pious object of educational institution can be achieved. 9. The petitioner may file copy of this order before the District Inspector of Schools, Basti within a period of two weeks from today who will pass the order afresh within another four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of. ————