JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner before this Court is working as adhoc Principal in Jan Kalyan Inter College, Ursan, Kanpur Dehat, which is a recognized and aided Intermediate College. He seeks quashing of the select panel dated 16.3.2010 notified by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board qua the post of Principal of the institution. 3. The select list dated 16.3.2010 is being challenged on three grounds (a) name of the petitioner was not forwarded by the institution as amongst two senior most teachers for participation in the process of selection under Rule 11(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1998 Rules’), (b) the respondent No. 5 had not opted for the post of Principal of the institution concerned and therefore he cannot be selected and (c) He was not interviewed by the Selection Board constituted for the post of Principal of the College under Rule 12. 4. For the second and third proposition reliance has been placed upon the interim order granted by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. of 2009 and that by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Nos. 323 of 2010 and Special Appeal No. 73 of 2010. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since under Rule 12 (1) of 1998 Rules a candidate is required to exercise options for three institutions at the maximum and further that under Rule 12(2) Selection Board are constituted institution-wise for the post of Principal, a candidate, who has not exercised his option for a particular institution under Rule 12(1), he cannot be considered for the vacancy in the institution for which he has not exercised his option. He further submits that since the Selection Board is to be constituted for every institution separately, a candidate, who is interviewed by the Board for the institution alone, is to be considered for empanelment against the vacancy in a particular institution. In case he does not participate in the interview before the said Selection Board, he cannot be considered for the said institution. 6. This Court may record that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 3.1.2010. In case he does not participate in the interview before the said Selection Board, he cannot be considered for the said institution. 6. This Court may record that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 3.1.2010. In view of the Division Bench judgment of Hari Om Tatsat Brahm Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(10) ADJ 767 (DB), he cannot continue as adhoc Principal subsequent to attaining the age of superannuation nor he can be appointed as Principal after attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, no order can now be granted for consideration of the case of the petitioner on the strength of the allegation that he was amongst the two senior most teachers entitled to be considered for appointment as Principal without his having applied. 7. So far as the non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner in the process of selection is concerned, this Court may only record that fault if any in that regard lies upon the management only. The petitioner, who is working as Ad-hoc Principal of the institution, must have been aware of the letter of the Board calling upon the institution to send name of two senior most teachers of the institution. Counsel for the petitioner admits that a letter was received calling for the senior two teachers to participate in the selections yet, as the letter was received 10 days prior to the selection, the name of two teachers were not forwarded. 8. I am of the considered opinion that the period of 21 days prescribed under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 is only directory in nature. Although calling of the two senior most teachers and their records is mandatory but the period of notice i. e. 21 days before the date of interview is only directory in nature. More over the petitioner should have appeared before the Board and should have raised his objections, if any, qua the notice period being shorted at that stage itself. Now, when he has reached the age of superannuation, no relief for being considered in the selection can be granted. 9. The second and third grounds raised are seriously opposed by the counsel for the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. Now, when he has reached the age of superannuation, no relief for being considered in the selection can be granted. 9. The second and third grounds raised are seriously opposed by the counsel for the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. It is stated that the options, which is asked for from the candidates at the time of submission of application forms are only directory in nature and they are not binding upon the Board. The Board is in fact obliged to offer appointment to the candidates having regard to the over all merit secured in the region. He submits that any other criterion if adopted would result in a situation where more meritorious candidates selected by the Board from open market would not be offered appointment against the advertised vacancy available in the institution, while a candidate much below in merit would be offered such appointment merely because he had opted for the said institution in his application form. 10. For appreciating the controversy raised, it is worthwhile to reproduce Rule 12(1), 12(2), 12(6), 12(8), 12(9) and 12(10), which read as follows: “12. Procedure for direct recruitment.—(1)The Board shall, in respect of the vacancies to be filed by direct recruitment, advertise the vacancies including those reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and other reserved categories as applicable to Government service from time to time, in at least two daily newspapers, having wide circulation in the State and call for the applications for being considered for selection in the pro forma published in the advertisement. For the post of Principal of an Intermediate College or the Headmaster of a High School, the name and place of the institution shall also be mentioned in the advertisement and the candidates shall be required to give the choice of not more than three institutions in order of preference and if he wishes to be considered for any particular institution or institutions and for no other institution, he may mention the fact in his application. (2) The Board shall scrutinize the applications and in respect of the post of teacher in lecturers and trained graduates grade, shall conduct written examination. The written examination shall consist of one paper of general aptitude test of two hours, duration based on the, subject. (2) The Board shall scrutinize the applications and in respect of the post of teacher in lecturers and trained graduates grade, shall conduct written examination. The written examination shall consist of one paper of general aptitude test of two hours, duration based on the, subject. The centers for conducting written examination shall be fixed in district headquarters only and the invigilators shall be paid honorarium at such rate as the Board may like to fix. (6) The Board, having regard to the need for securing due representation of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens in respect of the post of teacher in lecturers and trained graduates grade, shall call for interview such candidates who have secured the maximum marks under sub-clause (4) above/and for the post of Principal/Headmaster, shall call for interview such candidates who have secured maximum marks under sub-clause (5) above in such manner that the number of candidates shall not be less than three and not more than five times of the number of vacancies: Provided that in respect of the post of the Principal or Headmaster of an institution the Board shall also in addition call for interview two seniormost teachers of the institution whose names are forwarded by the management through Inspector under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 11. (8) The Board then, for each category of post, prepare panel of those found most suitable for appointment in order of merit as disclosed by the marks obtained by them after adding the marks obtained under sub-clause (4) or sub-clause (5) above, as the case may be, with the marks obtained in the interview. The panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster shall be prepared institution-wise after giving due regard to the preference given by a candidate, if any, for appointment in a particular institution whereas for the posts in the lecturers and trained graduates grade, it shall be prepared subject-wise and group-wise respectively. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the name of the candidate who has higher quality points shall be placed higher in the panel and if the marks obtained in the quality points are also equal, then the name of the candidate who is older in age shall be placed higher. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the name of the candidate who has higher quality points shall be placed higher in the panel and if the marks obtained in the quality points are also equal, then the name of the candidate who is older in age shall be placed higher. In the panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster, the number of names shall be three-times of the number of the vacancy and for the post of teachers in the lecturers and trained graduates grade, it shall be larger (but not larger than twenty-five per cent) than the number of vacancies. (9) At the time of interview of candidates, for the post of teachers in lecturers and trained graduates grade, the Board shall, after showing the list of the institutions which have notified the vacancy to it, require the candidates to give, if he so desires, the choice of not more than five such institutions in order of preference, where, if selected, he may wish to be appointed. (10) The Board shall after preparing the panel in accordance with sub-rule (8), allocate the institutions to the selected candidates in respect of the posts of teachers in lecturers and trained graduates grade in such manner that the candidate whose name appears at the top of the panel shall be allocated the institution of his first preference given in accordance with sub-rule (9). Where a selected candidate cannot be allocated any of the institutions of his preference on the ground that the candidates placed higher in the panel have already been allocated such institutions and there remains no vacancy in them, the Board may allocate any institution to him as it may deem fit.” 11. From a simple reading of the aforesaid rules it would be apparently clear that a candidate is asked to exercise his option in his application form, in respect of three institutions at the maximum and in case the candidate does not desire to be considered for any other institution (except the three for which he has exercised his choice), he shall make a note thereto in the application itself in writing. Meaning thereby, if a candidate does not add the note qua his candidature being not considered for the institutions other than for which he has exercised his option, the Board is under legal obligation to consider his candidature for other institutions also, which are subject matter of advertisement and qua which the option has not been exercised. 12. So far as the constitution of the Selection Board is concerned, it is no doubt true that Rule 12 requires establishment of Selection Board institution-wise but if the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, then a candidate will be required to face at least three Board constituted in respect of three institutions for which he has opted. Such can never be the intention of the Legislature. In the same process of selection a candidate cannot be asked to face three Board qua three institutions, which are subject matter of common selection by a statutory Commission. 13. The logical meaning to be attached to Rule 12(2) is that although separate Board are to be constituted institution-wise but the candidate applying from open market is to be interviewed only once and his claim be considered on the basis of overall merit i. e. quality point marks and interview marks, which are to be awarded by the Board he faced. The purpose of constituting separate Board for each institution is to ensure that two senior teachers of the institution concerned, who are entitled to be considered without they having applied under Rule 11(2), are interviewed by the Board of that institution only. The intention is not that an open market candidate shall face separate interview Boards constituted for the various institutions, vacancy whereof has been advertised. 14. It has to be kept in mind that the power to select a candidate for the post of Principal in recognized and aided Intermediate Colleges situate throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh has been conferred upon a common statutory body namely U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. The purpose being that the best candidate may be made available to the institutions. Any interpretation of the Rules, which lead to the situation where a person with lower merit gets appointed, would be defeating the very purpose for which the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board has been constituted. The purpose being that the best candidate may be made available to the institutions. Any interpretation of the Rules, which lead to the situation where a person with lower merit gets appointed, would be defeating the very purpose for which the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board has been constituted. Therefore, 1998 Rule, specifically Rule 12, has to be read in a manner which leads to furtherance of object for which U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board itself has been constituted and does not defeat the same on technicalities. 15. I am of the opinion that there cannot be a compromise with the merit on technicalities and a person who is more meritorious has a right to be appointed in preference to a person who is lower in merit. 16. This Court has no hesitation to hold that preference exercised by the candidate in his application form is only directory in nature and does not in any way defeat his right for being selected against any other vacancy of an institution which was subject matter of same advertisement and for the same region. From the procedure and preparation of the select list it is apparently clear that the same has to be drawn on the over all merit secured by the candidate and his choice is to be considered only with reference to his merit. The choice cannot be made tool to defeat the merit, as suggested by the counsel for the petitioner. 17. In respect of identical provisions under the U.P. Higher Education Services Selection Board Act, 1980, the full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinay Kumar (Dr.) v. Director of Education (Higher) Allahabad, 2005 ADJ 549 (FB), approved the law laid down in Alka Rani’s case and in paragraphs 34 to 40 and 43 has laid down as follows : “34. We are of the opinion that the Director cannot give any weight at all to the preference of the management in the selection of a particular candidate as their Principal or their Teacher. 35. We are of the opinion that the Director cannot give any weight at all to the preference of the management in the selection of a particular candidate as their Principal or their Teacher. 35. The Education Act of U.P. and the Rules and Regulations thereunder have been framed for various purposes, one of which is to see it that the management does not staff its college only in the manner it likes, that the staff is selected with a view to proper education of the students and the children and the best possible available candidates are put in the teaching jobs. The tendency of the management to favour its own candidates for extraneous reasons is negatived by the manner and procedure of the selection, which is given in these educational schemes and Acts. We find that in Section 13 there are only two factors for grading or selecting a candidate for a particular college. The first gradation is made as per Section 13 (1), on the basis of interview with or without examination and this gradation is called the merit list. 36. This merit list is not the only list. Though the management has no say in the matter, the employee, i.e. the prospective Principal or the prospective Teacher has a say of his own. He can make a preference for a College. 37. In our opinion, the Director at the time of making intimation is to take into account only two things, in regard to every candidate, namely, the candidate’s merit position as determined under Section 13 (1), and the preferential list of colleges or institutions given by the candidate himself. 38. How the Director is to allot the candidates to the different colleges on the basis of these two items and these two items only are, with respect, correctly laid down by the Division Bench in paragraph 9 in Alka Rani’s case (Supra) and we agree with that paragraph in toto. 39. In our opinion the Director does not use a discretionary power in making intimations under sub-section 8 (3) of Section 13. Instead of the Director, any other person with an equally logical mind as the Director will also be able to perform the same act but the Director has been given the authority, so as to carry conviction and to make it safe for the colleges to follow the recommendations and intimations coming under his signature. Instead of the Director, any other person with an equally logical mind as the Director will also be able to perform the same act but the Director has been given the authority, so as to carry conviction and to make it safe for the colleges to follow the recommendations and intimations coming under his signature. 40. The wording of sub-section (3) of Section 13 show that Director’s action is compulsory prescribed by the said sub-section. Although the said sub-section does not refer to the merit list at all yet as laid down in paragraph 9 of Dr. Alka Rani’s case (supra) the merit list must be considered by the Director and in this regard the Director cannot disregard sub-section (1) of Section 13 and the exercise performed under that sub-section. The exercised by the Director is performed thereafter and must be preformed thereon. 43. In this view of the matter we abide by what was said in paragraphs 9 and 10 (first sentence only) of Dr. Alka Rani’s case (Supra) and respectfully disapprove what was said in that case in paragraphs 10 (rest) and 11. We make it clear that we approve of the first sentence in paragraph 10 of Dr. Alka Rani’s case (Supra) but disapprove only of the latter part of that paragraph where the exception is said to be spelt out.” 18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that merely because respondent No. 5 has not appeared before the Board, which was constituted for the institution, or he had not mentioned the institution in question as one of his choice, it cannot be said that his selection for the institution on overall merit is illegal in any manner. Interim orders relied are not precedent, more so when this writ petition is being finally decided. Writ petition is dismissed. ————