JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 2. Having regard to the circumstances, this intra court appeal is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 3. The dispute in the present matter relates to the claim of the present appellant to continue as officiating Principal of Bariyar Shah Inter College Bharkharey Sultanpur, represented by the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner). The respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition, being Misc. Single No. 6233 of 2014, questioning the orders passed by the official respondents whereby and whereunder, the appellant was to be allowed to work as the officiating Principal of the college in question. It was, inter alia, contended by the writ petitioner that the present appellant was not suitable to hold the administrative post of Principal. An order dated 22.09.2014 was also in question before the learned Single Judge whereby, the District Inspector of Schools had ordered single operation of the account of salary disbursement concerning the institution because of the management having failed to comply with the orders passed by the Department and complications having arisen in the disbursement of salary. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the said writ petition on 26.09.2014 and, after taking note of the submissions, the learned Single Judge directed the Director of Secondary Education to hold an inquiry into the allegations made by the management against the present appellant and submit his report within six weeks; and posted the matter after six weeks. The learned Single Judge further provided that in the meantime, operation of the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2014 shall remain stayed but at the same time, further directed that the writ petitioner will not interfere with the working of the present appellant as officiating Principal. The order dated 26.09.2014 reads as under: - "Petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed by Deputy Director Education on 18.09.2014, by means of which earlier order dated 06.09.2014 passed by him has been cancelled and DIOS has been directed to comply with the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by Principal Secretary, Education. I have heard Sri Sandip Dixit for petitioner and Sri H.G.S. Parihar for respondent. Petitioners' contention is that Sri Jagannath Prasad Singh, who has been thrusted upon the education college as Principal is not a fit person and he has been suspended by the management. I have heard Sri Sandip Dixit for petitioner and Sri H.G.S. Parihar for respondent. Petitioners' contention is that Sri Jagannath Prasad Singh, who has been thrusted upon the education college as Principal is not a fit person and he has been suspended by the management. His initial appointment was found to be illegal by the DIOS himself. Yet, he has been allowed to continue under pressure brought about by the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education. His submission is that under the U.P. Payment of Salaries Act, 1971, DIOS ought to have acted according to his own discretion and law and any interference is absolutely uncalled for. It is also submitted that Jagannath Prasad Singh was suspended which was disapproved by the DIOS on the pressure brought about by the Principal Secretary. Sri Jagannath Prasad is the senior most lecturer as such he has been allowed the charge of Officiating Principal. Since, Sri Jagannath Prasad is senior most lecturer, according to the circular of the Director, he has right to officiate as Principal as such DIOS has not committed any error in treating him as officiating Principal of the Institute, submits Sri H.G.S. Parihar. So far as suitability for the job is concerned, contention of Sri Sandip Dixit is that Sri Singh may be a very good teacher but office of Principal requires administrative pursuits as well. Moreover, he has althrough been a bad teacher. Since specific allegation has been made about the non-suitability, I direct Director of Secondary Education to hold an enquiry into the allegations made by the Management and submit his report within six weeks. List this petition after six weeks. Till the next date of listing, order of Single operation of accounts dated 22.09.2014 shall remain stayed but petitioner will not interfere into the working of Sri Jagannath Prasad Singh as Officiating Principal of the Institute." 5. A report was, thereafter, made by the Director of Secondary Education on 23.02.2015 in compliance of the order so passed by the Court. Therein, the learned Director found justified various points raised by the writ petitioner against the present appellant; and returned the findings that even the promotion of the appellant to the L.T. Grade was not proper and the orders upholding his claim to officiate as Principal were not in accord with the Government Orders. 6. Therein, the learned Director found justified various points raised by the writ petitioner against the present appellant; and returned the findings that even the promotion of the appellant to the L.T. Grade was not proper and the orders upholding his claim to officiate as Principal were not in accord with the Government Orders. 6. The said report dated 23.02.2015 was placed before the Court whereafter, the matter was considered on 26.02.2015. The learned Single Judge proceeded to observe that the present appellant was continuing as officiating Principal on the strength of interim order dated 26.09.2014; and in view of the report submitted, such interim order was required to be vacated; and the other impugned orders could not be sustained either. The learned Single Judge, therefore, proceeded to quash the orders impugned in the writ petition while leaving it open for the appellant to challenge the report before the appropriate Court. This order has been questioned in the present appeal; and the same could be reproduced for ready reference as under: - "Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Director, Secondary Education has appeared in pursuance to the earlier order of this court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.7 and the learned additional chief standing counsel for the official opposite party. Challenge herein is to the right of the opposite party No.7 to continue on the post as officiating principal to the college in question. The opposite party No.7 is continuing as such on the strength of interim order dated 26.09.2014 which also directed the Director of Secondary Education to hold inquiry into the allegations made by the management and submit his report within six weeks. The said direction was reiterated by this court vide its order dated 08.12.2014, but the inquiry was not conducted and it is only on 23.02.2015, i.e. barely two days ago when the inquiry has been completed and the report has been submitted, wherein, it has been found that the allegations of the management are correct and the opposite party No.7 is not entitled to continue as officiating principal. The delay in compliance of the order cannot be said to be justified. The concerned official should make sure that in future, such delay is not repeated. The delay in compliance of the order cannot be said to be justified. The concerned official should make sure that in future, such delay is not repeated. In view of the report submitted along with the counter affidavit, the interim order dated 26.09.2014 permitting the opposite party No.7 to continue as officiating principal is vacated. The impugned orders can also not be sustained, the same are accordingly quashed considering the aforesaid report leaving open for the opposite party No.7 to challenge the same before the appropriate court. Subject to above, the writ petition is allowed." 7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 have attempted to make several arguments on the merits of the issues involved, but without going into any question relating to the merits of the case, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 cannot be sustained for the fundamental reason that the same cannot be said to be carrying the requisite reasons. 8. In the totality of the circumstances, we are clearly of the view that while allowing this appeal, the writ petition deserves to be restored for reconsideration by the learned Single Judge. 9. In a reference to the background aspects, we find that in the writ petition, the management of the college had questioned the orders whereby and whereunder, the appellant was to be continued as officiating Principal of the college and had also questioned the other measures taken by the Department for non compliance of its earlier orders. On 26.09.2014, the learned Single Judge found it proper to direct the Director of Secondary Education to hold an inquiry into the allegations made by the management and to submit a report to the Court within six weeks. By way of interim directions, the order dated 22.09.2014 made for single operation of account was, of course, stayed but with the stipulation that the writ petitioner will not interfere with the working of the appellant as officiating Principal of the institute. In the given status of record, it is difficult to say that the appellant was working as officiating Principal only 'on the strength of' the said order dated 26.09.2014. In the given status of record, it is difficult to say that the appellant was working as officiating Principal only 'on the strength of' the said order dated 26.09.2014. The said order was simply carrying a condition that the writ petitioner will not interfere with the working of the appellant as officiating Principal; and such a condition was put for the purpose of the stay order as passed in favour of the writ petitioner against the single operation order dated 22.09.2014. The other orders were nevertheless operating whereby and whereunder, the appellant had been allowed to work as officiating Principal. 10. Apart from the above, the significant aspect of the matter remains that the Court had requisitioned a report from the Director of Secondary Education after holding inquiry into the allegations made by the management. The report was indeed submitted to the Court but then, the same could not have been taken as a fait accompli. In view of the dispute pending before the Court, the report was, obviously, subject to its consideration by the Court; and such a consideration, obviously, required an opportunity to the present appellant to contest the same, of course, with a corresponding opportunity to the writ petitioner to support the same. 11. From the impugned order dated 26.02.2015, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge condoned the delay in submission of the report, but thereafter, without any further adjudication on the issues involved, allowed the writ petition only in view of the report, while leaving it open for the appellant to challenge the report before the appropriate Court. 12. In our view, the challenge to the report in question, if at all, was to be considered in the writ petition itself wherein the said report had been requisitioned. It is a different matter as to what decision the Court would have taken after examination of the report and the contentions of the parties but, with respect, we feel that the writ petition could not have been allowed merely because a report had been filed against the appellant. In other words, we find it difficult to approve the order impugned for the fundamental reason that the same cannot be said to be carrying all the requisite reasons for allowing the writ petition. In other words, we find it difficult to approve the order impugned for the fundamental reason that the same cannot be said to be carrying all the requisite reasons for allowing the writ petition. In fact, in the order impugned, the learned Single Judge, with respect, has not indicated that the report was examined and was found to be satisfactory and was being accepted by the Court. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, it appears appropriate to set aside the order impugned and to restore the writ petition for reconsideration from the stage it was pending i.e., after filing of the report dated 23.02.2015. 13. Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal is allowed in the manner that the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 is set aside. Writ Petition No. 6233 (M/S) of 2014 stands restored for reconsideration by the learned Single Judge from the stage it was pending i.e., consideration of the matter after filing of the report dated 23.02.2015. 14. In the interest of justice and looking to the peculiar circumstances in the present matter, we also deem it proper to order that until final disposal of the writ petition, the interim order earlier passed in the writ petition on 26.09.2014 shall continue to operate. 15. Parties through their counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the learned Single Judge on 10th April, 2015. 16. It goes without saying but is yet made clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the case either way; and none of the observations herein shall have any bearing on the merit consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6233 (M/S) of 2014.