JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to quash the order dated 5.9.2012 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) wherein District Inspector of Schools Sant Kabir Nagar has proceeded to pass order directing therein that petitioner is not entitled to function as Officiating/Adhoc Principal as he does not fulfil requisite minimum eligibility criteria prescribed under U.P. Act No. II of 1921. 2. Brief background of the case as has been mentioned in the writ petition is that Sant Kabir Acharya Ram Vilas Inter College, Magahar District Sant Kabir Nagar is a recognised and aided institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and payment to the teaching and non-teaching staff is made under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The service conditions of the Teacher are governed under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and Rules framed there under. 3. Petitioner submits that one Chandra Bhan Yadav was working as principal on adhoc basis in the institution who retired on 30.6.2012 as such post of principal fell vacant on 1.7.2012 in the institution concerned. By the letter dated 18.6.2012 the respondent No. 4 directed Chandra Bhan Yadav to hand over charge of principal to the petitioner. Petitioner was selected as Lecturer by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board in the institution and after being issued appointment letter by the management of the institution petitioner submitted his joining report on 29.1.2005 ans since then petitioner has been working in the institution on the post of lecturer in the institution. The respondent No. 5 was also selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board on the post of Lecturer and respondent No. 5 also joined in the institution on 25.5.2006 after the appointment letter being issued by the management of the institution and since then the respondent No. 5 also has been working on the post of lecturer in the institution. Petitioner submits that a seniority list of lecturer working in the institution was also prepared by the respondent No. 4 and the said seniority list had been duly signed by the manager and the principal and counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools Sant Kabir Nagar. Petitioner submits that a seniority list of lecturer working in the institution was also prepared by the respondent No. 4 and the said seniority list had been duly signed by the manager and the principal and counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools Sant Kabir Nagar. Petitioner submits that since petitioner has completed more than five years regular service in lecturer grade and was senior most lecturer in the institution, as such after the retirement of principal of the institution on 30.6.2012, the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 2.7.2012 directed the respondent No. 4 to appoint the petitioner as officiating principal of the institution. Petitioner submits that a resolution was passed by the Committee of management on 30.6.2012 and the promotion of senior most lecturer to the post of officiating principal was considered by the respondent No. 4. After the appointment of the petitioner as officiating principal in the institution, the relevant papers were submitted before the District Inspector of Schools on 3.7.2012 for attestation of signature of the petitioner as officiating principal of the institution. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 12/13.7.2012 approved the resolution dated 30.6.2012 of the respondent No. 4 appointing the petitioner as officiating principal of the institution on the ground that the petitioner is senior most lecturer and the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of the petitioner as officiating principal and the signature of the petitioner as officiating principal had been attested by the respondent No. 4 and petitioner is working as officiating principal in the institution. Thereafter respondent No. 4 approached this Court and filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34536 of 2012 which was finally disposed of by this Court by judgement and order dated 19.7.2012 directed the District Inspector of Schools to take a decision in the matter preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the judgement dated 19.7.2012 of this Court the District Inspector of Schools had decided the matter of appointment of officiating principal in the institution on 5.9.2012 disapproving the appointment of petitioner on the post of officiating principal on the ground that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of principal and directed the respondent No. 4 to get attested the signature of respondent No. 5 as officiating principal in the institution. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed. 4. Sri B.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that under Section 18 of U.P. Act V of 1982, right to function as Officiating/Adhoc Principal has been conferred upon senior most teacher and said provision in itself does not talks of eligibility criteria and in view of this merely on the ground that petitioner is not qualified for the post of Principal right to function as Principal of petitioner cannot be defeated as has been done in the present case, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. 5. Countering the said submission, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri R.K. Ojha, Advocate contended that there is no doubt of this fact that under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 right of senior most teacher cannot be ignored but incumbent has to have requisite eligibility criteria for the post of Principal as is provided under U.P. Act No. II of 1921 and U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and accordingly as it is accepted position that petitioner does not fulfil minimum eligibility criteria as such no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner. 6. The qualification for the post of Principal has been prescribed in Appendix A under Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Rule 5 of 1998 Rules mentions that a candidate for appointment to a post of teacher must possess qualifications specified in regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Appendix A of the said Regulation provides that a candidate must possess qualifications specified in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. For ready reference Appendix ‘A’ of Chapter -II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in reference to Head of Institution is being extracted as below : “APPENDIX A (In reference to Regulation 1 of Chapter II) Minimum eligibilities for appointment of Heads and teachers in non-Government recognised Higher Secondary Schools. For ready reference Appendix ‘A’ of Chapter -II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in reference to Head of Institution is being extracted as below : “APPENDIX A (In reference to Regulation 1 of Chapter II) Minimum eligibilities for appointment of Heads and teachers in non-Government recognised Higher Secondary Schools. For the purpose of minimum eligibilities prescribed under this,the degree and diploma in concerned subject of any University established or issued under or by any Central Act, Provincial or State or any institution which is considered as University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, or of any such institution specially empowered by any enactment of Parliament shall be admissible. In relation to prescribed eligibilities the word “trained” means post graduate training eligibility i.e. L.T., B.T., B. Ed., B. Ed. Sc. or M. Ed. or any equivalent diploma or degree of any University or or institution as referred to in the preceding para. Departmental A.T.C. and C.T. with at least 5 years’ experience of teaching would be inclusive under this. Teachers having J.T.C./B.T.C. would be deemed as C.T. if he has worked for at least 5 years in C.T. grade. The aforesaid Appendix provides for three alternative qualifications for the post of Head of Institution. The first being Trained M.A. or M. Sc. or M. Com. or M. Sc. (Ag) or any equivalent post graduate or any other degree which is awarded by corporate body specified in above mentioned para one and should have at least teaching experience of four years in class 9 to 12 in any training institute or in any institution or University specified in para-1 or in any degree college affiliated to such University or institution recognised by the Board or any institution affiliated from Board, of other States or such other institutions whose examination are recognised by the Board. The second alternative qualification which has been provided for is that the candidate should have 10 years teaching experience of Intermediate classes of any recognized institution with first of second class Postgraduate degree and of third class Postgraduate degree with 15 years teaching experience. Third alternative qualification, provided for is Postgraduate Diploma holders in Science with the condition that he has passed diploma course in first or second class and has served meritoriously for 15 years or 20 years respectively in any recognized institution after passing such diploma course. Third alternative qualification, provided for is Postgraduate Diploma holders in Science with the condition that he has passed diploma course in first or second class and has served meritoriously for 15 years or 20 years respectively in any recognized institution after passing such diploma course. These are three alternative qualifications provided for being appointed on the post of Principal under Appendix-A of Chapter-II of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Said qualification for the post of Principal is further qualified by the note introduced to sub-rule (5) of Rules of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998. 7. Apex Court in the case of Balbir Kaur v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, 2008(3) ESC 409 (SC), keeping in view the provisions of Section 32 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 has taken the view that note to Sub-Rule (5) of Rules 1998 will prevail, and teaching experience as contemplated under the “Note” would apply to both the required experience and the experience more than that, and therefore, even for required experience only service rendered as Head Master/Lecturer is relevant. For appointment on the post of Principal, the qualifying experience as stipulated in the “Note” would apply. 8. This Court in the case of Shamshul Zama v. District Inspector of School, Chandauli and others, 2001 (45) ALR 804, has clearly taken the view that for appointment on the post of adhoc Principal an incumbent has to fulfill requisite minimum eligibility criteria. “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not into dispute consideration that Shamshul Zama does not hold trained post graduate diploma. He is simply possessed of post-graduate diploma in Zoology. Thus, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bansh Lal Sengar (supra) and in the case of Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) Shamshul Zama is not qualified for being appointed on the post of adhoc Principal, since he does not possess the necessary qualification, i.e. trained Post graduate diploma, he is not entitled for being appointed on the post of adhoc Principal as held in the case of Sri Nath Singh (supra). In view of the foregoing discussions the Writ Petition No. 37758 of 1999 fails and it dismissed. The Writ Petition No. 55697 of 2000 succeed and are allowed. In view of the foregoing discussions the Writ Petition No. 37758 of 1999 fails and it dismissed. The Writ Petition No. 55697 of 2000 succeed and are allowed. The order dated 16.11.2000 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition No. 55697 of 2000 is quashed.” 9. View to the similar effect has been expressed in the case of Harihar Prasad Kushwaha v. District Inspector of Schools Kushinagar and others, 2004(2) 1146. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is being extracted below: “Before we part with this judgment, we may also refer to another question which was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that whether the appointment of a permanent Principal on the basis of Appendix-A should also be applicable in the case of appointment of officiating Principal. So far as this question is concerned in our view in the case of Shamshul Zama (supra), it has clearly been held that essential qualifications would be required for the appointment of an officiating Principal. No other question was raised before us. “ 10. Learned counsel of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement in the cases of Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(6) ADJ 359 ; Surendra Pal Singh v. Kamlesh Singh and others, 2006 (6) ADJ 500 (DB); Committee of Management Kunwarani Prema Satyaveera Kanya Inter College, Bijnor v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (7) ADJ 692 (DB) and Gwalior Mahila Mandal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2008 (4) ESC 640 (SC). 11. In the case of Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(6) ADJ 359 , at no point of there was an issue in regard to the fact as to whether senior most teacher was eligible for being appointed as Officiating/Adhoc Principal of the institution as such facts of the said are clearly distinguishable. 12. Similarly in the case of Surendra Pal Singh v. Kamlesh Singh and others, 2006 (6) ADJ 500 (DB), question of entitlement of senior most Lecturer has been considered therein also issue of eligibility was not raised nor same has been decided. 13. 12. Similarly in the case of Surendra Pal Singh v. Kamlesh Singh and others, 2006 (6) ADJ 500 (DB), question of entitlement of senior most Lecturer has been considered therein also issue of eligibility was not raised nor same has been decided. 13. In the case of Committee of Management Kunwarani Prema Satyaveera Kanya Inter College, Bijnor v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (7) ADJ 692 (DB), also there was no issue in respect of eligibility of senior most Lecturer rather issue was as to whether provision of Section 18 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 is mandatory and further at what point of time right of senior most teacher can be defeated and at which stage District Inspector of Schools has authority to intervene in the matter. 14. In the case of Gwalior Mahila Mandal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2008 (4) ESC 640 (SC), only issue involved was that whether 3rd respondent being senior most teacher on attaining the age of superannuation of regular Principal should be appointed on the post of retired. In the said case also eligibility was not at all issue. 15. In view of this judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable or attracted on the fact of the case, and the issue raised stands already answered by this Court in the case Shamshul Zama v. District Inspector of School (supra) and Harihar Prasad Kushwaha (supra). In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ——————