JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present special appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while staying the operation of the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, Sri Kishun Singh presently arrayed as respondent No. 1 herein has been permitted to function as the officiating Principal of the institution. 2. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and have perused the impugned order dated 29th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and documents filed alongwith it. 3. Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the order dated 29th March, 2011 has been obtained by the respondent No. 1 by concealing the material fact that the applicant and not the petitioner before the writ Court was the senior most teacher in D.A.V. Narang, Inter College, Ghooghly, District Maharajganj. Further, the appellant has not been impleaded as one of the respondents in the array of parties in the writ petition when the writ petitioner had already been impleaded as one of the respondents in the Special Appeal No. 393 of 2011 as early as on 23rd March, 2011 and also having put his appearance in the Special Appeal No. 2303 of 2011 itself and, therefore, the order impugned having been obtained by concealing the material fact is liable to be set aside. 4. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel submitted that even though the appellant may be the senior most lecturer in the College but in view of the order dated 22.9.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 51743 of 2010 preferred by Sri Ram Krit Pathak and the order dated 1.12.2010 passed in the Special Appeal Nos. 998 of 2010 and 1615 of 2010 he is not entitled to hold the post of officiating Principal of the College and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 herein was entitled to continue and act as officiating Principal. 5. 998 of 2010 and 1615 of 2010 he is not entitled to hold the post of officiating Principal of the College and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 herein was entitled to continue and act as officiating Principal. 5. We are not impressed with the submissions made by Sri V.K. Singh for the simple reason that the impugned order dated 29th March, 2011 has been obtained by concealing material fact by claiming himself to be a senior most teacher as would be clear from the recital made in the impugned order when as a matter of fact he is the second senior most teacher in the College. We may mention here that Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Kishun Singh has not disputed the fact that Sri Ram Krit Pathak is senior to Sri Kishun Singh. He however, relied upon the order dated 22.9.2010 passed by this Court in his writ petition, which has been affirmed in appeal. Further, the senior most teacher i.e. Ram Krit Pathak not having been impleaded in the array of parties, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 29th March, 2011 permitting Sri Kishun Singh to function as officiating Principal of the institution is liable to be vacated as it could not have been passed in the given facts as mentioned herein before. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. The direction contained in the order dated 29th March, 2011 permitting Sri Kishun Singh as officiating Principal of the institution is hereby vacated. 6. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. —————