V. K. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 31. 03. 2009 passed by the District inspector of Schools, Mathura, asking the Committee of Management of the institution concerned to ensure joining of Jagdish Chandra Agrawal as Principal of Rashtriya Inter College, Goverdhan, District Mathura. ( 2 ) BRIEF background of the case is that in the district of Mathura, there is a recognised institution known as Rashtriya Inter College, Goverdhan, District Mathura. Said institution is on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, as such the provisions of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971 were fully applicable. Selection and appointment on the posts of Principal, Lecturers and L. T. Grade Teachers has to be made as per the provisions of U. P. Act No. V of 1982 read with U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. The post of Principal had fallen vacant at Rashtriya Inter College, Goverdhan, District Mathura. Said post was duly notified and then advertised by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board by means of advertisement No. 1 of 2002. At the point of time when selection process was underway, one Hari Babu Kaushikm, who was functioning as officiating Principal at Rashtriya Inter College, Goverdhan, District Mathura, preferred writ petition No. 235 of 2003 before this Court, and this Court on 07. 01. 2003 passed order directing to maintain status-quo. Thereafter result of the said selection was declared on 25. 07. 2003 and for the institution in question the panel which was declared, therein the name of Satish Chandra figured at serial No. 1 and the name of Jagdish Chandra Agrawal figured at serial No. 2 and Pusa Ram at serial No. 3. Petitioner submits that after the said selection was made, appointment letter was issued by the Committee of Management of the institution in favour of Satish Chandra, and he joined the post of Principal on 01. 09. 2003. Thereafter, on 03. 09. 2003 papers were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools for the purposes of attestation of signature. As nothing was done, reminder was sent on 30. 09. 09. 2003. Thereafter, on 03. 09. 2003 papers were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools for the purposes of attestation of signature. As nothing was done, reminder was sent on 30. 09. 2003, then a communication was sent by the office of the District Inspector of Schools mentioning therein that since there was an order of status-quo, as such Satish Chandra could not be permitted to join the institution and his signatures could not be attested, and it was suggested that it would be more appropriate that Satish Chandra be adjusted to some other institution. Faced with such situation, Satish Chandra returned back to his original institution, wherein he was maintaining his lien, from where he claims to have taken leave for one year. This Court heard the bunch of writ petitions and on 04. 11. 2003 and passed judgment cancelling entire selection on the posts of Principal made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 2002. Against the said judgment of Division Bench of this Court, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Honble Apex Court. Said SLP has been allowed on 16. 05. 2008, selections made have been upheld and the judgment passed by Division Bench has been set aside. Thereafter, the U. P. Secondary Education Service selection Board asked the District Inspector of Schools to take steps for ensuring joining of Satish Chandra, pursuant to which appointment letter was issued to him on 10. 08. 2008, then it transpired that Satish Chandra had already attained the age of superannuation on 30. 06. 2008. Against the post in question, petitioner had been functioning as officiating Principal since 30. 09. 2008 and his signatures were also attested on 20. 10. 2008. Thereafter on 31. 03. 2009 communication has been sent by the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura for ensuring joining of candidate placed at serial No. 2 in the select panel. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed, requesting therein that select panel prepared pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 2002 cannot be impleneted and given effect to, as the panel itself has exhausted. ( 3 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed and therein plea has been sought to be taken that on 12. 08. 1998, 24. 12. 1999 and 03. 03. ( 3 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed and therein plea has been sought to be taken that on 12. 08. 1998, 24. 12. 1999 and 03. 03. 2002 applications had been invited and said selections were subject matter of challenge and ultimately proceedings have been finalised by Honble Apex Court on 16. 05. 2008. It has been stated that after said proceedings had been finalised, U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board wrote letter dated 25. 06. 2008 for ensuing joining of selected candidates. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools on 28. 08. 2008 issued letter to the Committee of Management of the College in question for issuing letter of appointment to selected candidate and ensuring his joining. Thereafter, various letters were sent and ultimately, the District Inspector of Schools on 10. 02. 2009 wrote letter that Satish Chandra has already attained the age of superannuation on 30. 06. 2008 from the post of lecturer in Physics, as such appointment letter could not be issued to him. Thereafter, Jagdish Chandra Agrawal, who was placed at serial No. 2 in the select panel, has been offered appointment. It has also been stated that Hari Babu Kaushik, who had been functioning on the post of Principal and order of status-quo was also passed in his favour on 17. 01. 2003 and as such there was no scope of Satish Chandras joining. Plea has been taken that Satish Chandra never joined in the institution, thus there did not arise any occasion of exhaustion of the select panel. ( 4 ) AFTER pleading mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties present before the Court. Plea has been taken that Satish Chandra never joined in the institution, thus there did not arise any occasion of exhaustion of the select panel. ( 4 ) AFTER pleading mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties present before the Court. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, Advocate, questioned the validity of order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, asking the Committee of Management to give appointment to Jagdish Chandra Agrawal on the post of Principal on the ground that since in the past selected candidate Satish Chandra had been appointed and joined, as such select panel lost its life and same cannot be used as reservoir for appointment, then on second occasion, on the basis of said select panel, name of Jagdish Chandra Agrawal could not have been recommended, as such order impugned deserves to be quashed, and writ petition deserves to be allowed with further direction that the vacancy should be advertised afresh. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri D. K. Mishra, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that there is total misconception in the mind of the petitioner, inasmuch as in pursuance of the selection made, incumbent in question had not at all been appointed, as such there was no occasion of the vacancy being advertised afresh for undertaking denovo fresh selection proceedings, as has been claimed by the petitioner, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which emerges and to which there is no dispute, is that pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 2002 selection proceedings had been undertaken for the post of Principal at Rshtriya Inter College, Goverdhan, District Mathura. At the point of time when vacancy in question had been advertised, Hari Babu Kaushik questioned the validity of the said selection by filing writ petition No. 235 of 2003, wherein this Court on 07. 01. 2003 passed interim order directing to maintain status-quo qua the office of the Principal. Select panel was declared on 25. 07. 2003 for Rashtriya Inter College, which comprised of the names of Satish Chandra, Jagdish Chadnra Agrawal and Pusa Ram. The said select panel was forwarded to the District Inspector of School, who on 27. 08. 01. 2003 passed interim order directing to maintain status-quo qua the office of the Principal. Select panel was declared on 25. 07. 2003 for Rashtriya Inter College, which comprised of the names of Satish Chandra, Jagdish Chadnra Agrawal and Pusa Ram. The said select panel was forwarded to the District Inspector of School, who on 27. 08. 2003 intimated the same to the Committee of Management, asking it to get the needful done in the matter by issuing appointment letter in favour of selected candidate. In the letter dated 27. 08. 003 sent by District Inspector of Schools, it was clearly and categorically specified to get the appointment letter issued and for the purposes of payment of salary entire testimonials be transmitted. It was also clarified that in case against any advertised vacancy there is any interim order passed by any Court, then its compliance was a must. The Committee of Management in pursuance of the letter of the District Inspector of Schools proceeded to pass resolution and unanimously took decision to issue appointment letter to Satish Chandra on the same day i. e. 27. 08. 2003. On receipt of appointment letter, Satish Chandra moved an application to the Manager of K. M. Inter College, Dhampur, District Bijnor, where he was functioning as lecturer, for according leave for a period of one year, so as to enable him to join the post of Principal at Rashtriya Inter Colelge, Goverdhan, Mathura. It was also mentioned that in case of any adverse circumstances, he would return back to serve his previous institution. Satish Chandra claims to have joined on 01. 09. 2003, and on 03. 09. 2003 papers were transmitted for attestation of signature. Since another incumbent had already been functioning as officiating Principal in the institution and his signatures were even attested, and he had also secured interim order from this Court in his favour, as such the District Inspector of Schools passed order on 06. 09. 2003, clearly and categorically mentioning therein that by no stretch of imagination, Satish Chandra could be permitted to join the post of Principal until final decision of writ petition No. 235 of 2003; therein further suggestion was made that Sri Satish Chandra may be adjusted in some other institution. Sri Satish Chandra acquiesced to the order dated 06. 09. 09. 2003, clearly and categorically mentioning therein that by no stretch of imagination, Satish Chandra could be permitted to join the post of Principal until final decision of writ petition No. 235 of 2003; therein further suggestion was made that Sri Satish Chandra may be adjusted in some other institution. Sri Satish Chandra acquiesced to the order dated 06. 09. 2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools; returned back and started functioning as lecturer at K. M. Inter College, Dhampur, Bijnor. ( 6 ) THE question is as to whether in such contingency can it be accepted that selected candidate had joined the post and the select panel stood exhausted? ( 7 ) IN the case of Chandresh Nath Singh Baghel vs Sri Bhagwan Singh Sisodia and others, 2008 All. Civil Journal 564, pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 1995-96 one Mohanmmad Naim was placed in the select panel was offered appointment, he joined, performed and discharged duty and ultimately retired on 30. 06. 1997. In that background, the Division Bench took the view that vacancy which came into existence due to retirement of Mohd. Naim could not have been filled up from the panel prepared in pursuance of advertisement No. 1 of 1995-96, following the principle that once selected candidate has been appointed, the select panel lost its life, it has been held that the select panel cannot be used as reservoir for appointment against new vacancy. Now the facts of the present case are being adverted to. Here admitted position is that advertisement No. 1 of 2002 was subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 235 of 2003, wherein on 07. 01. 2003 an interim order was passed directing to maintain status-quo. Select panel was prepared by the U. P. Secondary Education Service selection Board on 25. 07. 2003; it was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for implementation. On instruction being issued by the District Inspector of Schools, the Managing Committee issued appointment letter in favour of Satish Chandra, the incumbent holding first position in the select panel. On papers being transmitted for attestation of signature, thereafter, the District inspector of Schools confronted with the situation that there was an interim order to maintain status-quo in favour of the then officiating Principal, and in this background, the District Inspector of Schools passed order on 06. 09. On papers being transmitted for attestation of signature, thereafter, the District inspector of Schools confronted with the situation that there was an interim order to maintain status-quo in favour of the then officiating Principal, and in this background, the District Inspector of Schools passed order on 06. 09. 2003 that Satish Chandra could not be permitted to join the post and it was suggested that he might be adjusted in some other institution. Said Satish Chandra acquiesced to the said order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 06. 09. 2003 and returned back to his original institution where he was having lien and serving as lecturer in Physics. The District Inspector of Schools has clearly stressed in letter dated 28. 07. 2003 that in case there were interim orders passed by the Court, same should be complied with, as far as Rashtriya Inter College, Goverdhan, Mathura is concerned, there was interim order passed in a writ petition wherein advertisement No. 1 of 2002 was subject matter of challenge. Once order of status-quo was there, then by no stretch of imagination any appointment letter could have been issued in favour of Satish Chandra for the simple reason that the letter dated 27. 08. 2003 of the District Inspector of Schools itself mentioned that in case there was any interim order passed by High Court, the same should be respected and abided by. Thus in the teeth of the interim order of status-quo, in pursuance of letter dated 27. 08. 2003, appointment of Satish Chandra was not at all feasible. The District Inspector of Schools being confronted with the situation passed order dated 06. 09. 2003 disapproving issuance of appointment letter in favour of Satish Chandra, and even Satish Chandra acquiesced to the said order and returned back to his original institution. Once the letter dated 27. 08. 2003 issued by District Inspector of Schools was clear and categorical, then the Management of the institution was in error in issuing appointment letter to Satish Chandra, as such no credibility should be attached to the said appointment letter issued in favour of Satish Chandra, inasmuch as the same stood disapproved by letter dated 06. 09. 2003 issued by District Inspector of Schools. 09. 2003 issued by District Inspector of Schools. The facts of the present case clearly show and establish that the appointment letter to Satish Chandra was issued on wrong presumption and same having not been approved by the District inspector of Schools, it cannot be presumed that appointment was made from the select panel in question and the select panel exhausted its life. The said select panel still holds the field and as the proceedings have now been finalised by the Honble Apex Court, the same can be used for the purposes of filling the post of Principal at Rashtriya Inter College, Goverdhan, Mathura; and in case the incumbent placed at serial no. 1 has attained the age of superannuation, the next candidate in order of merit has rightly been offered appointment. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. .