JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—By means of Special Appeal No. 1987 of 2009 (Surendra Prasad Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and others) and Special Appeal No. 1991 of 2009 (Abu Mohd. Khan v. State of U.P. and others), the matter has been referred to a larger Bench to decide the following question : “Whether a teacher of Intermediate College who has already been appointed as officiating principal of the Institution by virtue of his seniority on attaining the age of superannuation in the extended period of his service shall continue as officiating principal or simply as a teacher?” 2. The Bench has been accordingly formed and carefully heard all the parties to come to an appropriate conclusion. 3. Admittedly, Regulation 21 of Chapter III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is relevant for due consideration herein. The same is quoted herein below : “21. Superannuation age of Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and other employees would be 60 years. If above said superannuation age of any Principal, Headmaster and Teacher falls on any date in between 2nd July and 30th June, except in the condition when he himself, before two months of the date of superannuation, furnishes in writing the information for not seeking extension of service, extension of service up to 30th June shall be deemed to be conferred on him so that after summer vacation, substitute can be arranged in the month of July. In addition to this, extension of service could be granted only in such special cases which may be decided by the State Government. If date of superannuation of any clerk or fourth class employee falls in the middle of any month, his extension of service would be deemed to be given up to the last date of that month. But if the date of appointment of any employee falls on the first date of any month, he shall be retired on the last date of the preceding month.” 4. From the plain reading of the regulation, it appears to us that a vested right is affirmed taking in account the contingency, which become integrated part and parcel of the regulation. Such contingency arose for the benefit of the Institution, shifting of Head of the institution in the mid-session obviously affect the interest of the students. Students cannot impart their education by their own accord, hence, there is necessity of continuation of the teachers too. Such contingency arose for the benefit of the Institution, shifting of Head of the institution in the mid-session obviously affect the interest of the students. Students cannot impart their education by their own accord, hence, there is necessity of continuation of the teachers too. Therefore, they are the beneficiaries provided retirement age falls within the prescribed period. If any contingency is made under the law to supplement the vested right, it creates enforceable legal right by the fiction. 5. Relying upon earlier judgment in 1979 (4) SCC 204 (K.S. Dharmadatan v. Central Govt. and others) Supreme Court held that a legal fiction must be limited to the purposes for which it has been created and cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field. A legal fiction is adopted in law for a limited and definite purpose only and there is no justification for extending it beyond the purpose for which the legislature adopted. According to us, the legal fiction under Regulation 21 is neither beyond its legitimate field nor beyond the purpose for which the legislature adopted. It is a natural consequence. In this case, there is no departure from such settled principle. 6. It is further important to say that there is no dispute with regard to the extension of service of regular Principal or Headmaster who’s age of superannuation falls within such period. He or she will be allowed to continue till the end of the academic session, i.e., upto 30th June of the relevant year. Hence, it is automatic unlike other law or laws. A regular Principal or Headmaster will get all the retiral benefits for the post of such Principal or Headmaster, if his services are extended and ended upto 30th June of the respective year. As a result whereof, the contingency, if any, cannot be held to be contingency at all, but a part of vested right by the legal fiction. By the resolution not only law is introduced, but implemented. 7. Against this background, we have to see whether the officiating Principal will also be entitled to the similar benefits for his extension of service by the legal fiction till 30th June of the respective year or not. By the resolution not only law is introduced, but implemented. 7. Against this background, we have to see whether the officiating Principal will also be entitled to the similar benefits for his extension of service by the legal fiction till 30th June of the respective year or not. It is to be remembered that under Section 18 (4) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1982’) says that every appointment of an ad hoc Principal or Headmaster under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall cease to have effect from when the candidate recommended by the Board joins the post, meaning thereby the regularly appointed Principal will only be able to take charge of the Institution from the ad hoc or officiating Principal. Ad-hoc cannot be replaced by Ad-hoc. No one having been junior to him can be allowed to claim any relief in such background. The Supreme Court by virtue of a judgment reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 (Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and others), has also held that an ad hoc cannot be replaced by an ad hoc because it will not be beneficial for the institution. There is no doubt and dispute amongst the parties that the Act and provision are inapplicable therein nor the incumbents did not continue as officiating Principals prior to their dates of retirement upon attaining 60 years of age. Against this background, we have to see from such Act what is the meaning of the word ‘teacher’. The meaning of ‘teacher’ is given in Section 2 (k) of the Act, 1982, which is as follows : “2. (k). ‘Teacher’ means a person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and includes a Principal or a Headmaster.” 8. Therefore, whether one is placed as teacher or principal does not make any difference. On the other hand, there is no dispute that senior most teacher can be appointed as officiating Principal till the date of regularly appointed Principal. Factually, both were appointed as officiating Principals prior to their actual age of retirement and continued thereafter, thus, the word ‘Principal’ or ‘teacher’ includes the words ‘Officiating Principal’. 9. The moot point of referring the matters before us is the different views taken by the High Court in different cases. Factually, both were appointed as officiating Principals prior to their actual age of retirement and continued thereafter, thus, the word ‘Principal’ or ‘teacher’ includes the words ‘Officiating Principal’. 9. The moot point of referring the matters before us is the different views taken by the High Court in different cases. In (2002) 1 UPLBEC 767 (R.C. Gupta (Dr.) v. State of U.P. and others), the basic question was, whether extension of service from the date of superannuation upto 30th June of the respective year, was automatic or not. It was held that in the degree colleges, the permanent Principal has right to the post of Principal and an ad hoc Principal has no such right, therefore, the permanent Principal can continue as Principal till 30th June of the respective year after his age of superannuation, but an ad hoc or acting Principal can only continue as Lecturer till 30th June, after he crosses the age of superannuation, but not as a Principal. Since such case is applicable in the degree colleges, which are governed by the different Act, but not by the Regulation made for the Intermediate Colleges, where extension is automatic, cannot be held to be applicable herein. 10. So far as 2006 (10) ADJ 767 (Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla v. State of U.P. and others) is concerned, the Division Bench referred the matters before us, rightly held that the controversy in between the parties, in such case, was entirely different. In that case, the dispute was as to whether one can claim promotion to the higher post after attaining the age of superannuation. In the instant case, the officiating Principal after attaining the age of superannuation wanted to continue till 30th June of the respective year, as per the legal fiction, but no claim has been made for the higher post during the extended period of service. However, paragraph 9 of Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla (supra) is quoted hereunder to deal with the same in a proper manner : “9. We further add that the purpose and object of Regulation 21 Chapter III is to protect studies of students from disruption during academic session and it is for the benefit of the students during academic calendar of the year. We further add that the purpose and object of Regulation 21 Chapter III is to protect studies of students from disruption during academic session and it is for the benefit of the students during academic calendar of the year. By giving a persuasive interpretation of the said clause, it is amply clear that the said protection is basically for the benefit of the students and the academic calendar of the institution and does not give any vested right to a teacher to claim a promotion.” 11. In addition to the observation of the Division Bench, we require to say that the paragraph 9 of the judgment is supporting the cause in a negative way. When one cannot be promoted during such period, he cannot be demoted too. It means that status quo for the period is required to be maintained for the incumbent. 12. So far as 2003 (2) ESC 956 (All) (Raja Ram Chaudhary v. Satya Narain Gupta and others) is concerned, possibly this is only the case nearer to the consideration of the cause. It has been held therein that the purpose of extension is only to secure the benefit of the students and the same is on the basis of the decisions referred therein. We have already taken note of such situation and for the sake of repetition, we say that action of imparting education cannot be held to be unilateral act, but bilateral act. Regulation 21, if read keeping in mind the action of imparting education bilateral effect will come out. Having so, we have to say that the observation and inference of the Division Bench in such judgment are misconstrued, and cannot be held to be a good law. Moreover, in the case of Raja Ram Chaudhary (supra), the Court relied upon four judgments to come to a conclusion, out of which, we have already held that the case of R.C. Gupta (Dr.) (supra) is applicable in respect of degree colleges, where the extension of such period is not automatic, therefore, the ratio cannot be applicable therein. Similar situation is there in 2000 (4) ESC 2278 (S.K. Rathi v. Prem Hari Sharma and others). Apart from that, such position was in respect of the teachers, not in respect of the officiating Principals, who are appointed as such before attaining the age of superannuation. Similar situation is there in 2000 (4) ESC 2278 (S.K. Rathi v. Prem Hari Sharma and others). Apart from that, such position was in respect of the teachers, not in respect of the officiating Principals, who are appointed as such before attaining the age of superannuation. In that case, the post of Principal and the teacher was not held to be the same. It is a teacher on promotion, who is appointed as Principal and there is no decision of the Government in such case giving extension beyond the period of 60 years to a Principal. In 2000 (1) ESC 645 (All) (Committee of Management, Jagdish Saran Rajvansi Kanya Inter College, Meerut and another v. Joint Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut and others), the Division Bench of our High Court held that the factual context of the matter was totally different. A teacher continued on the post of teacher upto 60 years and after attaining the age of superannuation, when he was selected as Principal, wanted to get benefit of Regulation 21, which was referred by the Court. Therefore, such ratio is inapplicable herein. In 1987 AWC 1314 (Ram Lal Prasad v. State of U.P. and others), it has been held that the right of extension of such service cannot be held to be vested right and it is a privilege granted in the interest of the students. However, we have already held that the privilege granted in the interest of the students does not necessarily mean that the same will exclude the right of a teacher, under whatever capacity, on the fateful day of superannuation. 13. So far as 2008 (4) ESC 2706 (All) (Shri Nath Sahai v Devendra Nath Dwivedi and others) is concerned, actually we find that the concerned teacher was granted extension of two years of service in lieu of the State Level Award granted to him, and during the extended period, he was not entitled to claim the post of Principal of the Institution, which had fallen vacant in the meantime. The referring Division Bench herein already observed that in contrast, the appellants herein were given officiating appointment as Principal of the respective institutions much earlier to attaining the age of superannuation and their claim is for continuation in the same status which they were enjoying on the respective dates of their superannuation and not any higher or superior rights. The referring Division Bench herein already observed that in contrast, the appellants herein were given officiating appointment as Principal of the respective institutions much earlier to attaining the age of superannuation and their claim is for continuation in the same status which they were enjoying on the respective dates of their superannuation and not any higher or superior rights. Moreover, that case might be covered by other part of the regulation 21, which is as follows : “In addition to this, extension of service could be granted only in such special cases which may be decided by the State Government.” 14. Here, there is no dispute with regard to such part of the Regulation. Therefore, under no circumstance, we can rely upon the ratio of the judgment to appreciate the stand of the respondents. 15. Let us also consider the position from a different angle. There are three different provisions which regulate (a) the date of superannuation of a teacher including Principal i. e. Regulation 21 of Chapter-III, (b) seniority of the teacher, which is regulated by Regulation 2 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and (c) Ad-hoc appointment of senior most teacher as officiating Principal pending regular appointment of the selected candidate on the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as per Section 18 of the Act, 1982. 16. All the aforesaid statutory provisions take care of three different aspect of service of teachers working in recognized and aided Intermediate Colleges. Date of retirement stands postponed till the end of the academic session under Regulation 21 in case where a Principal/teacher attains the age of superannuation on any date except 1st July of the year. Regulation 21 of Chapter-III does not in any way affect the seniority as determined under Regulation 3 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. 17. To put it simply, it may be recorded that the senior most teacher of the institution does not loose his seniority merely because he has attained the age of superannuation and is continuing in the institution by virtue of Regulation 21 of Chapter-III till the end of the academic session. His seniority remains intact till 30th June following the date on which he reaches the age of superannuation. It is this seniority in the cadre of teacher that forms the basis of appointment as ad-hoc Principal. His seniority remains intact till 30th June following the date on which he reaches the age of superannuation. It is this seniority in the cadre of teacher that forms the basis of appointment as ad-hoc Principal. Consequently, so long as the seniority is not affected his right to continue as ad-hoc Principal under Section 18 cannot be said to be lost merely because he has attained the age of superannuation. This method of postponing the day of retirement beyond the date on which the employee reaches the age of superannuation is not unknown, inasmuch as large number of employees on attaining the age of superannuation retire only at the end of the month e.g. Registrars of the High Court. 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla (supra) as well as Raja Ram Chaudhary (supra) and S.K. Rathi (supra) have intermingled the right which accrues to a teacher under Regulation 21 of Chapter-III viz-a-viz his right to continue as ad-hoc Principal on the strength of his settled seniority under Section 18 of the Act, 1982. Said intermingling is not contemplated by any of the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act or that of Act, 1982. 19. We may clarify that a teacher, after he attains the age of superannuation, cannot be offered any appointment either by way of direct recruitment or by way of officiating appointment and it is for this reason that the teacher, after attaining the age of superannuation, cannot claim appointment as ad-hoc Principal, when he is continuing as teacher till the end of the academic session under Regulation 21 of Chapter-III. The fact situation in respect of such teacher is entirely different viz-a-viz a teacher who was appointed as ad-hoc Principal before attaining the age of superannuation and is to continue on the strength of his seniority alone till regularly selected Principal is appointed or till the 30th June, following his age of superannuation under Regulation 21 of Chapter-III. 20. As a matter of fact, Regulation 21 has the effect of postponing the date of superannuation and has to be distinguished from a case where re-employment is offered. Because of postponement of the date of superannuation, the teacher continues to draw all benefits including revision of salary, annual increment etc. which may fall due during this period. 20. As a matter of fact, Regulation 21 has the effect of postponing the date of superannuation and has to be distinguished from a case where re-employment is offered. Because of postponement of the date of superannuation, the teacher continues to draw all benefits including revision of salary, annual increment etc. which may fall due during this period. In fact it is a continuation of the same service till 30th June, following the date of superannuation. 21. In all, we are of the view that the answer of the reference to the question of law would be as such : ‘Yes. A teacher of Intermediate College, who has already been appointed as officiating Principal of the Institution, by virtue of his seniority on attaining the age of superannuation in the extended period of his service, shall continue as officiating Principal, not simply as teacher’. Reference is decided, accordingly. Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.—We agree. ————