JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:- “A. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 01.08.2015 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. B. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of Officiating Principal in Rashtriya Inter College, Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh within the period specified by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that in Tahbarpur in District Azamgarh, there is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act 1860. The aforesaid society runs and manage an educational institution namely Rashtriya Inter College, Tahbarpur, Azamgarh. The aforesaid Committee of Management passed resolution on 25.05.2014 to suspend Sri Arvind Kumar Rai who is working as Principal of the College for charges of embezzlement, insubordination and indiscipline and passed suspension order on 31.05.2014. The aforesaid suspension order was required approval from District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh therefore, the aforesaid suspension order was sent for approval but the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 07.06.2014 disapproved the suspension order of Arvind Kumar Rai on the ground that charges are not serious. Against the aforesaid order, the Committee of Management filed Writ Petition No.36233 of 2014 and this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.072014 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 07.06.2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh (in short "D.I.O.S."). In compliance of order of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh again consider the case and disapproved the proposal of the committee of management to suspend Arvind Kumar Rai vide order dated 04.10.2014. Against the order dated 04.10.2014, Committee of Management again approached this court by filing writ petition No.60045 of 2014. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2014 by which Arvind Kumar Rai was directed to work as Principal. Against the aforesaid order, a Special Appeal was filed by the Committee of Management before this Court. The said Special Appeal was allowed and the order dated 12.11.2014 was set aside. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2014 by which Arvind Kumar Rai was directed to work as Principal. Against the aforesaid order, a Special Appeal was filed by the Committee of Management before this Court. The said Special Appeal was allowed and the order dated 12.11.2014 was set aside. In the circumstances, the Committee of Management did not permit Arvind Kumar Rai to join the college and appointed Sri Chandra Shekhar Rai being senior most teacher as Officiating Principal. Sri Chandra Shekhar Rai was superannuated on 30.06.2014. Thereafter the petitioner being senior most teacher was appointed as officiating principal. The Management sent the papers for attestation and the D.I.O.S. vide order dated 11.12.2014 attested the signature of the petitioner as officiating principal. The petitioner discharged her duties as Officiating Principal from 05.08.2014. On 09.11.2020, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner is continuously discharging her duties as officiating principal and the fact that he is superannuated on 30.06.2014 is wrong and incorrect due to mistake. It is stated in paragraph 27 of the writ petition that the D.I.O.S. vide order dated 01.08.2015 rejected the claim of the petitioner for salary as Officiating Principal. Hence the present writ petition. 4. The claim set up for payment of salary by the petitioner on the post of Officiating Principal was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh/respondent No.3 on two grounds. Firstly, the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 will not apply and secondly, the provisions contained under Regulation 2(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 will also not apply. It is stated in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the petitioner is working on the post of Officiating Principal and her signatures for the aforesaid post was duly attested by respondent No.3 vide order dated 11.12.2014. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents including District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. There is no denial in the entire counter affidavit regarding working of the petitioner on the post of Officiating Principal. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, the contents of paragraph 24 of the writ petition were dealt with. There is no denial in the entire counter affidavit regarding working of the petitioner on the post of Officiating Principal. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, the contents of paragraph 24 of the writ petition were dealt with. It is stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit that since the suspension of Arvind Kumar Rai continued, as such for urgent work of the Institution, the petitioner was appointed as Officiating Principal but there is no order with regard to payment of salary of the Principal to the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The stand of the respondent No.3 that the petitioner was not appointed as an ad hoc Principal, therefore, she is not entitled for the salary of Principal, is unacceptable. As noted above, the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh himself has attested the signatures of the petitioner as Officiating Principal on 11.12.2014. From the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, it is established that the signatures of the petitioner as Officiating/Ad hoc Principal have been attested by respondent No.3 on 11.12.2014. It is also clear from perusal of the record that the petitioner is still discharging her duties on the post of Officiating Principal. 8. Regulation 2(3) of Chapter II of Part II-A of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 deals with the temporary vacancy in the post of Head of the institution, which reads as under :- "(3) Where the temporary vacancy in the post of head of institution is, for a period not exceeding thirty days, the senior-most teacher in the highest grade may be allowed to work as acting head of institution, but he shall not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than the scale of pay in which he is drawing salary as such teacher." Section 18 of the Act, 1982 reads as under: "18. Ad hoc Principals or Headmasters.--(1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Board in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and the post of the Principal or the Headmaster actually remained vacant for more than two months, the Management shall fill such vacancy on purely ad hoc basis by promoting the senior most teacher,-- (a) in the lecturer's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Principal; (b) in the trained graduate's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Headmaster. (2) Where the Management fails to promote the senior most teacher under sub-section (1), the Inspector shall himself issue the order of promotion of such teacher and the teacher concerned shall be entitled to get his salary as the Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, from the date he joins such post in pursuance of such order of promotion. (3) Where the teacher to whom the order of promotion is issued under sub-section (2) is unable to join the post of Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, due to any act or omission on the part of the Management, such teacher may submit his joining report to the Inspector, and shall thereupon be entitled to get his salary as the Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, from the date he submits the said report. (4) Every appointment of an ad hoc Principal or Headmaster under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Board joins the post." 9. The State Government has also issued a Government Order dated 18th January, 1974 accepting the recommendations of the U.P. Pay Commission prescribing the scales of pay for the teachers. Paragraph-5(2) of the Government Order provides that a teacher while officiating on the post carrying higher grade is entitled to officiating salary in the higher grade and it further prescribes for determining the salary of the officiating teacher in the higher grade. 10. The aforesaid Government order came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. The District Inspector of Schools, Budaun and others. 1980 UPLBEC 286. The Division Bench held as under: "2. 10. The aforesaid Government order came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. The District Inspector of Schools, Budaun and others. 1980 UPLBEC 286. The Division Bench held as under: "2. The petitioner is a teacher in aided and recognised institution and the liability for the pre-joint his salary is on the State Government under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary of Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971. The salary of a teacher in aided and recognized institution is regulated by the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the order issued by the State Government from time to time. Regulation 46 in Chapter III lays down that employees of an aided and recognized institution shall be given the pay scale sanctioned by the State Government from time to time. The State Government has prescribed the scales of pay for teachers. The State Government issued an order on 18th January, 1974 accepting the recommendations of the U.P. Pay Commission prescribing scales of pay for teachers. Paragraph 5(2) of the Government order lays down that a teacher while officiating on the post carrying higher grade is entitled to officiating salary in the higher grade and it further prescribed procedure for determining the salary of officiating teacher in the higher grade. A copy of the Government order was before us by the petitioner. Respondents do not deny the petitioner's averment that the State Government issued orders sanctioning officiating pay to a teacher in the higher grade. The petitioner's claim for salary in Principal's grade was sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the aforesaid Government order. Respondents have failed to show any subsequent Government order or rule superceding the direction contained in Government order dated 24-1-74. The respondents have further failed to place any material before the court showing that the petitioner was not entitled to the salary in the Principal's grade while officiating on the post of Principal. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-8-77 is therefore not sustainable in law. 3. The respondents have further failed to place any material before the court showing that the petitioner was not entitled to the salary in the Principal's grade while officiating on the post of Principal. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-8-77 is therefore not sustainable in law. 3. In the result we allow the petition and quash the order of the District Inspector of Schools and direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the Principal's grade for the period during which he has been officiating as Principal in accordance with the orders contained in the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 14-4-79. The petitioner is entitled to his cost." 11. In Narbdeshwar Mishra v. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, 1982 UPLBEC 171, another Division Bench of this Court again reiterated the same principle and held that the officiating Principal will be entitled to receive salary admissible to Principal. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Soloman Morar Jha v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, 1985 UPLBEC 113, while considering the aforesaid issue held as under : "3. There is no dispute that a permanent vacancy arose in the post of principal in the institution. There is, further, no dispute that the petitioner, being a senior most teacher, was appointed to officiate on the post of Principal. Admittedly, the petitioner has been functioning as the acting Principal since 1-7-1981 and in that capacity, he has been discharging the functions of the Principal. Since the petitioner has been performing the duties and functions of the Principal, he is entitled to salary in the Principal's grade, for the period during which he continues to work as the Principal. In Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. D.I.O.S. Budaun 1980 UPLBEC 286 as well as in Narvadeshwar Misra v. D.I.O.S. Deoria, 1982 UPLBEC 171, two Division Benches of this Court held that a lecturer officiating in the post of Principal is entitled to salary in the Principal's grade. The D.I.O.S. is under a legal obligation to pay the salary to a person for the period during which he acts as a Principal. The law is very well settled in this respect. The D.I.O.S. has refused to pay the salary to the petitioner in an unjustified manner." 12. The D.I.O.S. is under a legal obligation to pay the salary to a person for the period during which he acts as a Principal. The law is very well settled in this respect. The D.I.O.S. has refused to pay the salary to the petitioner in an unjustified manner." 12. The aforesaid decisions have consistently been followed and this Court in a long line of decisions considering the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1982 also has followed the aforementioned law. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Full Bench judgment of this court in the Case of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (8) ADJ 617 . The aforesaid case is in respect of the provisions contained in U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the First Statutes of various universities. The matter was referred before the Full Bench due to conflict between the ration of the decision in the case of Daljeet Singh v. State of U.P., 2007 (7) ADJ 117 (DB) and Om Saran Tripathi Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (8) ADJ 322 (DB). The Division Bench has referred the following questions for consideration by the Full Bench: 1. Whether there is a conflict between the ratio of the decisions in the cases of Daljeet Singh Vs State of U P, 2007 (7) ADJ 117 and Om Saran Tripathi Vs State of U.P., 2009 (8) ADJ 322 and if so, which of the views lays down the law correctly; and 2. Whether an officiating Principal appointed under Statute 10.20 of Purvanchal University, is entitled to claim payment of salary in the regular grade of the Principal or not. 14. After considering all the relevant case laws with regard to the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, State Universities Act and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, the Full Bench has referred the following decisions in paragraph 4 of its judgment which reads as under :- "4. 14. After considering all the relevant case laws with regard to the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, State Universities Act and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, the Full Bench has referred the following decisions in paragraph 4 of its judgment which reads as under :- "4. For the completeness of the record, we note that Division Benches of this Court in the following decisions directed the payment of salary drawn by a principal to an officiating principal of a secondary school: (1) Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, Budaun, 1980 UPLBEC 286; (2) Narbdeshwar Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, 1982 UPLBEC 171; and (3) Soloman Morar Jha v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, 1985 UPLBEC 113." 15. The Full Bench has also considered the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act in the following terms: "29. A somewhat similar situation had arisen under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. That Act was enacted to establish a Secondary Education Service Commission for the selection of teachers in institutions recognized under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The expression 'teacher' was defined to include a principal. Section 16 provided that subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 33 and certain other sections, every appointment of a teacher upon the commencement of the Act would be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission and an appointment made in contravention of the provisions would be void. Section 18 dealt with ad hoc appointments of teachers. Since the provisions of Section 16 were made subject to Section 18, ad hoc appointments could be validly made under Section 18. However, after the enactment of U.P. Act 1 of 1993, Section 16 was substituted and Section 18 of the Principal Act was sought to be deleted. Section 33 empowered the State Government to issue and notify Orders for removing any difficulty, during such period as may be specified in the Order, whereupon the provisions of the Act would have effect subject to adaptations whether by way of modification, addition or omission. Two notified Orders were issued under Section 33 (1). Neither of the two Orders provided for any time limit during which the orders would remain effective. 30. Two notified Orders were issued under Section 33 (1). Neither of the two Orders provided for any time limit during which the orders would remain effective. 30. These provisions came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, 1994 (2) ESC 345 (All)(FB). Dealing with the situation, the Full Bench held as follows: "...After enforcement of U.P. Act No.1 of 1993 except Section 13 thereof the situation that emerges is that by new Section 11 of Amendment Act which has substituted Section 16 of the Principal Act, has come into force whereas the omission of Section 18 from the principal Act by Section 13 of this amending Act has not been enforced which means Section 18 still continues in the Principal Act. In view of this legislative development a peculiar situation has arisen that new Section 16 which has come into force is no longer subject to Section 18 of the Act which means that no appointment on ad hoc basis can be made under Section 18 of the Act. New Section 16 begins with a non-obstante clause which means in spite of other provision, no appointment shall be made except on the recommendation of the Board. Where a section begins with a non-obstante clause, it indicates that the provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in the provisions in the Act. Thus after omission of Section 18 from Section 16 no ad hoc appointment is permissible under Section 18 and if made, would be void under subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Act. It has not been brought to my notice that First Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 issued by the State Government has either been revoked or rescinded. On the contrary, it was asserted that the said Removal of Difficulties Order is continuing. 49. Now the question for consideration is that if no ad hoc appointment of teacher or Principal can be made under Section 18 of the Act, whether it is permissible to appoint a teacher or Principal on ad hoc basis under the First Removal of Difficulties Order? A perusal of Section 16 would show that Section 16 is still subject to Section 33 of the Act which empowers the State Government to issue Removal of Difficulties Order. A perusal of Section 16 would show that Section 16 is still subject to Section 33 of the Act which empowers the State Government to issue Removal of Difficulties Order. Since Removal of Difficulties Orders have been issued under Section 33 of the Act, an ad hoc appointment either by direct recruitment or by promotion under the Removal of Difficulties Order would be a valid appointment." 31. Hence, the Full Bench took the view that even after the omission of a reference to the provisions of Section 18 in Section 16 following U.P. Act 1 of 1993, since Section 16 was still subject to Section 33, ad hoc appointments could be made both under the First and Second Removal of Difficulties Orders that had been issued under Section 33." The answer of the Full Bench to the reference is in the following terms: "57. We, accordingly, dispose of the reference in the following terms: (i) The decision in Daljeet Singh (supra) does not lay down the correct position in law; and (ii) An officiating principal appointed under the Statutes of the University, which are pari materia to the provisions of Statute 10-B of the First Statutes would be entitled to claim the payment of salary in the regular grade of principal for the period during which he or she has worked until a regularly selected candidate has been appointed and has assumed charge of the office. 58. The reference before the Full Bench is accordingly disposed of. The proceedings shall now be placed before the regular Bench in accordance with the roster of work for disposal in the light of this judgment." 16. The Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow has issued an order dated 25th August, 2015 to all the District Inspector of Schools of the State directing them to appoint the senior-most Assistant Teacher/ Lecturer as officiating Principal of the institutions, where the office of the Principal is vacant, and to grant them the salary of the Principal. The Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow has issued an order dated 25th August, 2015 to all the District Inspector of Schools of the State directing them to appoint the senior-most Assistant Teacher/ Lecturer as officiating Principal of the institutions, where the office of the Principal is vacant, and to grant them the salary of the Principal. The order dated 25th August, 2015 reads as under: ^^lwPp gS fd tuizfrfuf/k;ksa ,oa ek/;fed fo|ky;ks ds lsok la?kks ds izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk ;g laKku es yk;k x;k gS fd v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa ekSfyd :i ls fjDr iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kkukpk;Z ds in ij laLFkk ds T;s"Bre l-v-@T;s"Bre izoDrk ds LFkku ij dfu"B l-v-@dfu"B izoDrk ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr fd;s tkrs gSA 2- vki voxr gh gS fd mŸkj izns'k ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok p;u cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr½ dh /kkjk&18 esa izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk&1 esa fd;s x;s izko/kkuqlkj cksMZ dks fjDr dh lwpuk fn;s tkus ,oa iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kkukpk;Z dk in okLro esa 02 ekg ls vf/kd fjDr gksus dh fLFkfr esa laLFkk ds iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kkukpk;Z dk in okLro esa 02 ekg ls vf/kd fjDr gksus dh fLFkfr esa laLFkk ds iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kkukpk;Z ds in ij laLFkk ds T;s"Bre l-v-@T;s"Bre izoDrk dh rnFkZ inksUufr laLFkk izca/kra= }kjk dh tk;sxhA mijksDr /kkjk esa ;g Hkh izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd tgka izca/kra= T;s"Bre la-v-@T;s"Bre izoDrk dks rnFkZ :i ls inksUufr djus esa foQy jgs ogka fujh{kd ,sls v-v-@izoDrk dh inksUufr ds ,sls vkns'k ds vuqlj.k esa in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djs] iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kkukpk;Z ds :i esa vius osru dk gdnkj gksxkA 3- mijksDr izko/kkuks ds vkyksd esa f'k{k.k laaLFkk esa iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kkukpk;Z dk in ekSfyd :i ls fjDr gksus dh fLFkfr esa laLFkk ds dfu"B la-v-@dfu"B izoDrk ds gLrk{kj dk;Zokgd iz/kkuk/;kid@dk;Zokgd ds :i es izekf.kr fd;k tkrk lanfHkZr vf/kfu;e ds loZFkk foijhr gSA 4- vr% vkidks funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vf/kfu;e O;oLFkkuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsA vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr dk;Zokgh gsrq vki LOka; mŸkjnk;h gksaxs ,oa vkidk mDr vkpj.k mŸkj izns'k jktdh; deZpkjh fu;ekoyh] 1956 ds vkpj.k fu;e&3 ds foijhr gksus ds vk/kkj ij vkids fo:) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh lafLFkr fd;s tkus gsrq 'kklu ls vuqjks/k djus dh iz'kkldh; ck/;rk gksxhA vk'kk gS fd vki ,slh v:fpdj fLFkfr mRiUu ugha gksus nsaxsA^^ 17. Thus, the stand taken by the District Inspector of Schools that the petitioner was not appointed as an ad hoc Principal in terms of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and Regulation 2(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is completely misconceived and misleading. 18. On the basis of analysis of the above principle, the stand taken by the respondent No.3 in the order is absolutely illegal. It further appears from perusal of the record that taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, 1982, Government Order dated 25th August, 2015 has already been issued by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow to all the District Inspector of Schools of the State directing them to appoint the senior-most Assistant Teacher/ Lecturer as officiating Principal of the institutions, where the office of the Principal is vacant, and to grant them the salary of the Principal. 19. It is unfortunate that in spite of the fact that clear provisions which are contained in the Act and Government Order in this regard has already been issued by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow on 25th August, 2015, the stand taken by the respondent No.3 in the present case refusing payment of salary to the petitioner on the same ground which were earlier dealt with by different Division Benches as well as Full Bench of this Court could not be justified. 20. After careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by setting aside impugned order 01.08.2015 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh/respondent No.3 and by issuing a direction upon the Regional Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh/respondent No.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner about her salary of the officiating Principal in the principal's grade. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation before the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh who shall pass the order in the light of the observations made herein-above within two months from the date of communication of this order. 21. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.