JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, a Lecturer in “Sri Agrasen Kanya Inter College, Varanasi” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’), has sought the quashing of the order dated 20th November, 2007 passed by the Authorised Controller of the College as also the consequential order dated 6th December, 2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DIOS’) whereby by the former order, a direction has been given to Smt. Sangeeta Banerjee, Lecturer in the College, to discharge duties as Officiating Principal of the College and by the latter her signatures have been attested. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents not to disturb the working of the petitioner as the Officiating Principal of the College. 2. The regular Principal of the College retired in the year 2000 after attaining the age of superannuation. In the absence of regular Principal, Prem Lata Sinha, a Lecturer in the College, was appointed as the Officiating Principal of the College but as disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her by the Committee of Management, respondent No. 5 Sangeeta Banerjee was given the charge of Officiating Principal of the College by the order dated 20th March, 2005. However, she sent a communication dated 22nd March, 2006 to the Manager of the College expressing her inability on account of domestic circumstances to take charge of the Officiating Principal of the College. Gayatri Singh was thereafter asked to take charge of the Officiating Principal of the College by the communication dated 22nd March, 2006 and though she took charge of the Officiating Principal but subsequently expressed her inability to continue as the Officiating Principal of the College by the communication dated 20th May, 2006 in view of domestic circumstances. The petitioner was, thereafter, given charge of the Officiating Principal of the College by the order dated 20th June, 2006. However, the Manager of the College again gave the charge of the Officiating Principal to Sangeeta Banerjee, but she again expressed her inability to work as the Officiating Principal by the communication dated 25th June, 2006. The petitioner was thereafter asked to work as the Officiating Principal and her signatures were also attested by the DIOS by the order dated 24th July, 2006. The petitioner was thereafter asked to work as the Officiating Principal and her signatures were also attested by the DIOS by the order dated 24th July, 2006. On 20th November, 2007, however, the Authorised Controller of the College, who had since been appointed in the College, directed Sangeeta Banerjee to work as the Officiating Principal of the College in view of the application submitted by Sangeeta Banerjee and the fact that Sangeeta Banerjee was the senior most Lecturer in the College. On the basis of the said order, the DIOS by the order dated 6th December, 2007 attested the signatures of Sangeeta Banerjee as the Officiating Principal of the College. These two orders have been impugned in the present petition. 3. I have heard Sri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Sangeeta Banerjee and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once Sangeeta Banerjee had declined to officiate as the Principal of the College, she could not subsequently be given charge of the Officiating Principal, particularly when the same substantive vacancy is continuing and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Satya Vir Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr and others, 1995 (1) AWC 122; Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 UPLBEC 1159 and upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 959 of 2006 (Sundershan Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 15th September, 2006. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Sangeeta Banerjee and the learned Standing Counsel, however, contended that mere refusal by Sangeeta Banerjee on two occasions to work as the Officiating Principal of the College cannot be treated as refusal for all times to come and as the senior most Lecturer, she was entitled to officiate as the Principal of the College. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the decisions rendered in Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Inter College, Lalpur Imiliadheesh, Bedipur, Basti and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Basti and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2088 and Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Vidya Mandir College, Saharanpur and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 600 . 6. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that twice the Committee of Management had asked Sangeeta Banerjee, respondent No. 5, to work as the Officiating Principal of the College but on each occasion, she declined to work in view of her domestic problems. It is, in such circumstances, that the petitioner was asked to officiate as the Principal of the College but subsequently when the Authorised Controller was appointed, an order was passed by him on 20th November, 2007 that Sangeeta Banerjee shall work as the Officiating Principal of the College and the DIOS subsequently attested her signatures. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the Authorised Controller was justified in passing the order that Sangeeta Banerjee shall officiate as the Principal of the College instead of the petitioner, particularly when the same substantive vacancy is continuing. 8. In Satya Vir Singh (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a learned Judge of this Court observed as follows : “Once a senior-most teacher is permitted to function as Officiating Principal of an institution but he either declines to accept the post or after accepting the post submits his resignation, he cannot claim that right to function as Officiating Principal. In Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993, Smt. Sudesh Kakkar v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Ist Region, Meerut and others, a Division Bench of this Court held that once a senior-most teacher declines offer to function as Officiating Principal she cannot claim the right subsequently to be appointed as Officiating Principal of the Institution.” 9. This decision was, however, distinguished by a learned Judge of this Court in Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Inter College, Basti and others (supra) and it was observed : “Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Cort in Satya Vir Singh v. D.I.O.S., Bulandshahr, 1995 (1) AWC 122 and he has emphasised on paragraphs 11 and 12 of this decision in which it has been held that once the senior most teacher has declined to accept the post he cannot claim the right to function as officiating Principal. In my opinion this decision is distinguishable. In the present case the respondent No. 2 had declined to accept the post of Principal in the year 1981. In my opinion this decision is distinguishable. In the present case the respondent No. 2 had declined to accept the post of Principal in the year 1981. Satya Vir Singh’s case cannot be interpreted to mean that once a person has declined to officiate as ad hoc Principal and later on the vacancy again occurs he cannot then claim to be the officiating Principal merely because he had earlier declined. In my opinion, declining of the post is only for that particular period of time when the vacancy had arisen. It cannot be treated to amount to permanently declining the post for all times to come. Whenever the vacancy may again occur in future, the senior most teacher may again be considered for the post of Principal according to law.” 10. In Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Vidya Mandir College, Saharanpur (supra), a learned Judge of this Court, after considering the decisions of this Court in Satyavir Singh (supra) and Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Inter College, Basti (supra), observed that the principles laid down in Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Inter College (supra) were applicable to the facts of the case and accordingly observed as follows : “Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that on earlier three occasions the officiating Principal was to be appointed in the leave vacancy. The respondent No. 3 had declined to hold the post. However, after the leave vacancy had come to an end and the Principal had joined, the question of officiation cannot be said to have continued. Declining to hold the post of officiating Principal on earlier three occasions cannot be held to disentitle a person from being considered on the post of the officiating Principal when a substantive vacancy has arisen...................” 11. The aforesaid decisions in the case of Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Vidya Mandir College, Saharanpur (supra) as also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Sudesh Kakkar v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Ist Region, Meerut and others, rendered in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993 were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sundershan Kumar (supra) and it was held that if a teacher refuses to officiate as the Principal of the College then, if the same substantive vacancy continues, he cannot subsequently turn around and claim appointment as Officiating Principal. The relevant observations are as follow : ”In the present case the facts are different. The substantive vacancy had arisen on 30.6.2003 and the same vacancy is continuing. It is not a case where leave vacancy has subsequently been converted into a substantive vacancy or a fresh substantive vacancy had arisen. Therefore, respondent No. 6 having refused to officiate as the Principal on the said substantive vacancy, he is not entitled to stake claim for appointment as Officiating Principal on the same very vacancy subsequently on the retirement of Officiating Principal. Therefore, the above case law is of no help to respondent No. 6 and in fact it goes against him inasmuch there is no fresh substantive vacancy of the post of Principal. In our opinion, respondent No. 6 in unequivocal terms had refused to officiate as Principal when the substantive vacancy of the post of Principal had occurred on 30.6.2003. The said same post continued to remain vacant as no substantive appointment on the said vacancy was made. Mere fact that an ad-hoc arrangement of Officiating Principal, which was made earlier on the said post, has come to an end, it does not mean that a fresh substantive vacancy had been created or arisen. The substantive vacancy remains the same and only Officiating arrangement has come to an end. Since respondent No. 6 had declined to officiate as Principal on the said very vacancy, he cannot be permitted at this stage to turn around and to claim appointment as Officiating Principal on the same very post. The respondent No. 6 having refused to accept Officiating appointment is estopped under Law from claiming officiating appointment on the same substantive vacancy. It would have been a different thing if a substantive vacancy which had occurred earlier, had been filled up by a regular appointment and then a fresh vacancy had been created. In that event, respondent No. 6 may have become entitle for reconsideration for Officiating Principal on the fresh substantive vacancy. The above view taken by us stands fortified by an unreported Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sudesh Kakkar v. Regional Inspector of Girls Schools and others, passed in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993 decided on 7.4.1994, which has been relied upon in the case of Satya Vir Singh (supra)................” 12. The above view taken by us stands fortified by an unreported Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sudesh Kakkar v. Regional Inspector of Girls Schools and others, passed in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993 decided on 7.4.1994, which has been relied upon in the case of Satya Vir Singh (supra)................” 12. It is in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid decision rendered in Sundershan Kumar (supra) that a learned Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra) observed as follows : “The substantive vacancy occurred on 30.6.1998 on the retirement of Ramesh Chandra Gupta and no fresh vacancy occurred upon the retirement of Girish Chandra Jain on 30.6.1997. It was the same vacancy which continued. Consequently, the vacancy which occurred on 30.6.1998 continued and continued to exist till 30.6.2007. The same post continued to remain vacant and no substantive appointment on the said vacancy was made. The mere fact that an ad hoc arrangement of officiating Principal was made earlier on the said post which came to an end would not mean that a fresh substantive vacancy had again been created. The substantive vacancy remained the same and only an officiating arrangement had come to an end. This view was also held in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of Sundershan Kumar (supra), which is squarely applicable to the present facts and the circumstances of the case. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands impliedly overruled in view of the decision of the Division Bench.” 13. In the present case, no fresh substantive vacancy has arisen and the substantive vacancy which had occurred on account of the retirement of the regular Principal in the year 2000 is still continuing. In view of the Division Bench decision rendered by this Court in Sundershan Kumar (supra) it has to be held that Sangeeta Banerjee cannot work as Officiating Principal of the College since she had on earlier two occasions declined to do so. The order dated 20th November, 2007 passed by the Authorised Controller and the consequential order dated 6th December, 2007 passed by the DIOS, therefore, cannot be sustained. 14. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 20th November, 2007 and 6th December, 2007 are quashed. The order dated 20th November, 2007 passed by the Authorised Controller and the consequential order dated 6th December, 2007 passed by the DIOS, therefore, cannot be sustained. 14. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 20th November, 2007 and 6th December, 2007 are quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to work as Officiating Principal of the College in terms of the earlier order passed by the Management of the College. ————