JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri K.M. Shukla, Shri R.C. Tiwari, Shri Shard Pathak and Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Raj Kumar Singh Suryavanshi and Shri Raishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the Board and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. All the writ petitions involve similar facts and issues, therefore, they were heard together and are now being decided by a common judgment. 3. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petitions and the facts of the case need to be mentioned as far as they are relevant. 4. The relief clause in Writ Petition No. 372 of 2022 reads as under:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Condition No.5 of Circular dated 5.1.2022 by means of which the date 25.2.2014 has been fixed for considering the eligibility criteria two senior most teachers for holding the post of Principal of recognized institutions recognized under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to take into consideration the eligibility of two senior most teachers, including the petitioner, for holding selection on the post of Principal of Rajarshi Tandon Inter College, Ram Nagar Athgawan, Pratapgarh under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and Rules made there under as 10.1.2022, which is the last date for sending the details of them before the Board by the concerned District Inspector of Schools.” 5. In this case the petitioner claims to be working as Ad-hoc Principal of the Institution in question w.e.f. 13.04.2021. It is stated that the post of Principal in the institution fell vacant on superannuation of Shri Nagendra Nath Tiwari on 30.06.2013. Accordingly, on a requisition being sent the same was advertised by the Board on 31.12.2013 by Advertisement No. 3 of 2013. It is stated that the post of Principal in the institution fell vacant on superannuation of Shri Nagendra Nath Tiwari on 30.06.2013. Accordingly, on a requisition being sent the same was advertised by the Board on 31.12.2013 by Advertisement No. 3 of 2013. In view of the averments made in Paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner was not amongst the two senior most teachers of the institution at the time of occurrence of vacancy nor at the time of sending of requisition to the Board or issuance of aforesaid advertisement for the purposes of consideration under Rule 11-(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1998) and it is only in 2021 that he was made Ad-hoc Principal possibly being the senior most or amongst two senior most teachers. 6. The selection in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 31.12.2013 could not be completed. According to the petitioner on 05.01.2022 a Circular was issued for uploading details of the two senior most teachers on the Official Website of the Board. The requisite information was required to be sent/uploaded by a particular cut off date and the details of the petitioner have been sent on 06.01.2022 by the D.I.O.S. and the same have been uploaded, as asserted, on 08.01.2022, but, the interview letter was not issued to the petitioner and as per the averments made in Paragraph 15 of the writ petition, this is on account of the fact that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions as on 25.02.2014 which was last date for filing application for being considered for appointment as per the Advertisement No. 3 of 2013. 7. In Paragraph No. 15 it has also been stated that the petitioner joined his service as Lecturer in the Institution on 24.11.2004. As he was not a trained teacher, therefore, in order to be eligible for the post of Principal, 10 years experience was required which was not complete as on 25.02.2014. He acquired the qualification of B.Ed. and became a trained teacher in February, 2015 i.e. subsequent to the relevant date which is 25.02.2014. As he was not a trained teacher, therefore, in order to be eligible for the post of Principal, 10 years experience was required which was not complete as on 25.02.2014. He acquired the qualification of B.Ed. and became a trained teacher in February, 2015 i.e. subsequent to the relevant date which is 25.02.2014. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was eligible, having the requisite qualification and experience for the post of Principal when the vacancy occurred, or the requisition was sent or on the relevant date when the Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 was issued. In fact during the course of argument it was fairly accepted that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have requisite experience for the post of Principal. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was amongst the two senior most teachers in the institution at that time. 8. The relief clause of Writ -A No. 364 of 2022 reads as under :- “(A) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned condition laid down in para 3 of the impugned release dated 02.01.2022. (Annexure No.1) by means of which the date 25.2.2014 has been fixed for considering the eligibility criteria two senior most teachers for holding the post of Principal of recognized institutions recognized under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1921. (B) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to take into consideration the eligibility of two senior most teachers, including the petitioner, for holding selection on the post of Principal of recognized institutions under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1921 as 16.01.2022, which is the last date for sending their details before the Board by the concerned District Inspector of Schools.” 9. In this case also the grievance of the petitioner is that the cut off date for determining the eligibility is being treated as 25.02.2014 based on the advertisement No. 3 of 2013 and as the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions i.e. qualification and experience on the said date, therefore, he is not being considered, although, he is officiating on the post of Principal in the institution concerned since 19.06.2016. He was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 01.04.2016 which was allegedly confirmed by opposite party no. 3 on 27.05.2016. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was amongst the two senior most teachers of the institution when the vacancy occurred on the post of Principal and thereafter advertisement was issued on 30.12.2013. In fact from the pleadings it appears he became the senior most and was given officiation of the post of Principal only in 2016. The case of the petitioner is that his eligibility for appointment should be considered as on 08.01.2022 which is the last date for uploading information in pursuance to the Circular dated 02.01.2022 etc. issued by the opposite parties in respect to the Advertisement No. 3 of 2013. 10. The advertisement being the same as in the first writ petition it may be reiterated that the selection was not completed and subsequently in January, 2022 certain circulars have been issued which shall be dealt with hereafter. It is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner was eligible and within the zone of consideration for appointment as Principal in 2013 when the vacancy occurred and/or the advertisement was issued. In fact, it is the admitted position that he was not eligible as on 25.02.2014 which was the last date for submission of application in pursuance to the said advertisement. In fact during the course of argument it was fairly accepted that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for the post of Principal. However, it is the case of the petitioner that said advertisement was only for candidates from the open market and not for the two senior most teachers, therefore, their eligibility should be determined on a separate date which in this case should be 08.01.2022. This is also the case in the earlier writ petition referred hereinabove. 11. The relief clause of Writ-A No. 241 of 2022 reads as under:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned panel dated 29.12.2021 issued by Opposite Party No.4 in pursuance of advertisement no. 01/2011, so far it relates to selection & allocation of Opposite Party No.6, on the post of Principal in the institution in question, as contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. 01/2011, so far it relates to selection & allocation of Opposite Party No.6, on the post of Principal in the institution in question, as contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the consequential order dated 03.01.2022 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 in pursuance of the Panel dated 29.12.2021, issued by Opposite Party No 4, as contained as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition.” 12. In this case the petitioner has challenged the empanelment of candidates dated 29.12.2011 issued by the opposite party no. 4 in pursuance to the Advertisement no. 1 of 2011 in which the opposite party no. 6 has been selected for appointment as Principal in the institution in question, meaning thereby, the selection has already been held in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011, in this case. 13. The petitioner claims to have joined the institution on the post of Lecturer on 18.09.2007. He claims that his name figures at Serial No. 1 in the seniority list of Lecturers of the institution issued for the year 2020-21. He was made Ad-hoc Principal vide order dated 28.09.2019. The post of Principal was advertised vide Advertisement No. 1 of 2011. In pursuance to which, the opposite parties no. 6 and 7 have been selected as stated in Para 14 of the writ petition. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was a trained teacher. During the course of argument learned counsel for petitioner asserted that his services as Subject Expert were liable to be counted and based thereon he is eligible as of now for the post of Principal, however, the requisite factual foundation is absent in the writ petition in this regard. The cut off date for determining the eligibility, based on the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011, is 25.08.2011, as informed by learned counsel for petitioner himself. The counsel asserted that he was a trained teacher possessing qualification of B.Ed., therefore, he required only four years experience in addition to the qualification prescribed. Although, as stated, in the writ petition the qualification of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned, nevertheless, this aspect would be considered subsequently. The counsel asserted that he was a trained teacher possessing qualification of B.Ed., therefore, he required only four years experience in addition to the qualification prescribed. Although, as stated, in the writ petition the qualification of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned, nevertheless, this aspect would be considered subsequently. In any case there is no assertion in the writ petition that the petitioner was amongst the senior most teachers eligible for being considered for appointment as Principal under Rule 11-(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998 at the relevant time in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was eligible having requisite qualification and experience for the post of Principal when the vacancy occurred or on the relevant date when the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 was issued. In fact during the course of argument it was fairly accepted that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for the post of Principal. 14. The relief clause of Writ -A No. 254 of 2022 is as under:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned panel dated 29.12.2021 issued by Opposite Party No.4 in pursuance of advertisement no. 01/2011, so far it relates to selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.6, on the post of Principal in the institution in question, as contained as Annexure No 1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the Post of Principal of the institution being the second senior most Lecturer of the institution as per provisions of Board Rules, 1998.” 15. In this case also the petitioner has challenged the empanelment of candidates dated 29.12.2021 in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 so far as it relates to selection and appointment of opposite party no. 6. Here also the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Subject Expert for teaching Intermediate classed in the institution in question vide appointment letter dated 01.12.2001. 6. Here also the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Subject Expert for teaching Intermediate classed in the institution in question vide appointment letter dated 01.12.2001. She was appointed as Lecturer vide letter dated 01.11.2007, therefore, she claims that considering her services as Subject Expert she was eligible and had the experience for selection as Principal, however, there is no averment in the writ petition that she was amongst the two senior most teachers at the relevant time when the vacancy on the post of Principal occurred and/or the advertisement was issued in respect thereof. In fact, in Para 10 it has been stated that Shri Balram Pandey and Shri Sadabriksh were two senior most lecturers at the relevant time. Shri Balram Pandey retired on 30.06.2013 and after his retirement the name of next senior most lecturer should have been sent which was not done, therefore, the empanelment is bad. The cut off date for fulfilling the eligibility criteria was 25.08.2011 in this case also as the advertisement was the same i.e. 01/2011. In para 11 it has been stated that in the seniority list for the year 2013-14 her name finds place at Serial No. 2, therefore, her name should have been sent for consideration in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 which was not done instead the opposite party no. 6 has been selected for appointment. In Para 14 it is stated that on a representation by the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools forwarded the matter to the Board vide letter dated 10.12.2013, but, the Board did not do anything in the matter. Interview for the post in question was held on 31.01.2014 and at that time the petitioner was the second senior most teacher in the institution, but, her name was not considered by the Board. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was eligible having the requisite qualification and experience for the post of Principal when the vacancy occurred or on the relevant date when the Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 was issued. In fact during the course of argument it was fairly accepted that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for the post of Principal. 16. In fact during the course of argument it was fairly accepted that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for the post of Principal. 16. The relief clause of Writ -A No. 268 of 2022 reads as under:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned panel dated 29.12.2021 issued by Opposite Party No.4 in pursuance of advertisement no. 01/2011, so far it relates to selection and allocation of Opposite Party No.6, on the post of Headmaster in the institution in question, as contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the Post of Headmaster of the institution being the senior most Teacher of the institution as per provisions of Board Rules, 1998.” 17. Here also the petitioner challenges the empanelment of candidates dated 29.12.2021 so far as it relates to selection and allocation of opposite party no. 6 on the post of Headmaster in the institution. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Ad-hoc Assistant Teacher on 27.08.1990. He claims that ultimately he was appointed against vacant post on 14.02.1992 in pursuance of an order of the High Court. Financial concurrence was granted in this regard by the D.I.O.S. on 11.03.1992. His services on the post of Assistant Teacher were regularized on 19.01.1999. The facts in this regard are slightly incongruous, nevertheless, they are, as stated in the writ petition. In Para 9 it has been averred that the petitioner is senior most Assistant Teacher of the institution and at present post of Headmaster is lying vacant. Consequently, he was promoted as Headmaster on Ad-hoc basis under Section 18 of the U.P. Board Act, 1982 and his signatures were attested on 29.04.2017, therefore, obviously the said Ad-hoc appointment as Headmaster is of year 2017. In the writ petition it has been stated that Shri Harish Chandra Dhar Dubey and Shri Haribux Singh were the two senior most teachers whose names were sent in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 for consideration for appointment as Principal, but, before the interview could be held on 31.01.2014 Shri Harish Chandra Dhar Dubey retired. In the writ petition it has been stated that Shri Harish Chandra Dhar Dubey and Shri Haribux Singh were the two senior most teachers whose names were sent in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 for consideration for appointment as Principal, but, before the interview could be held on 31.01.2014 Shri Harish Chandra Dhar Dubey retired. In Para 18 it is claimed that on 31.01.2014 when the interview was held the petitioner was at Serial No. 2 in the seniority list, as such, his name ought to have been forwarded for being considered for selection, but, this was not done. Shri Hari Bux Singh, the senior most teacher, whose name had been forwarded, was considered and got selected, but, prior to declaration of result, he retired from service on 31.03.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner’s grievance is that inspite of the fact that he was amongst the two senior most teachers as on 31.01.2014 his claim was not forwarded nor considered. The cut off date for fulfilling the eligibility criteria of qualification and experience was 25.08.2011 in this case also as informed by learned counsel for petitioner. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was eligible having the requisite qualification and experience for the post of Principal when the vacancy occurred or on the relevant date when the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 was issued. In fact during the course of argument it was fairly accepted that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for the post of Principal. 18. The relief clause of Writ - A No. 317 of 2022 reads as under:- “(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned requisition sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda on 27/07/2013 (contained as Annexure No.9 to this Writ Petition) and also to quash the impugned advertisement No.3/2013 by which the direct recruitment to the post of Principal of the respondent no.5 institution is being conducted in the year 2021 (contained Annexure No.10 to this Writ Petition).” 19. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the requisition sent by the D.I.O.S. on 21.07.2013 for the vacant post of Principal, the advertisement bearing No. 3 of 2013, in respect to which selection is being conducted, in 2021/22 after almost 9 years of the exercise having been initiated. 20. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the requisition sent by the D.I.O.S. on 21.07.2013 for the vacant post of Principal, the advertisement bearing No. 3 of 2013, in respect to which selection is being conducted, in 2021/22 after almost 9 years of the exercise having been initiated. 20. On 25.01.2022 Shri Amrendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Board had asserted before the Court that even in 2013 the petitioner was amongst the senior most teachers, however, from the pleadings in the writ petition this assertion is belied. The petitioner claims to have been appointed in the LT Grade on 12.12.1990 which was approved on 25.06.1991 by the D.I.O.S. His services were regularized on 16.03.1996 as claimed. He was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 12.05.2003 which was approved by the Joint Director of Education on 13.10.2011. In 2010 Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh, the selected Principal retired from service and thereafter, one Shri Ram Saran Singh was appointed as Ad-hoc Principal and he continued till June, 2014, as stated in Para 13 of the writ petition. After his retirement in June, 2014 one Shri Rajendra Prasad, the senior most lecturer was appointed as Ad-hoc Principal and he continued up to 15.05.2017, as stated in Para 14 of the writ petition, therefore, obviously the petitioner was not the senior most teacher at the relevant time when the vacancy occurred in 2010 nor when the advertisement was issued in 2013. As per Para 15 it is only in 2017 that he being the senior most lecturer, was appointed as Principal on Ad-hoc basis on 15.05.2017. 21. The case of the petitioner is that requisition for the vacant post of the Principal was sent by the D.I.O.S. on 27.07.2013 without the same having been sent by the Management to him. The Management never determined the vacancy, therefore, the D.I.O.S. should not have sent the requisition without complying Rule 11-(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998. In Para 28 reference has been made to a letter dated 05.01.2022 of the opposite party no. 6 by which information had been sought regarding the details of the two senior most lecturers under Rule 11-(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998. In Para 29 it has been stated that from the letter of opposite party no. 6 dated 08.01.2022 and order of opposite party no. 6 by which information had been sought regarding the details of the two senior most lecturers under Rule 11-(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998. In Para 29 it has been stated that from the letter of opposite party no. 6 dated 08.01.2022 and order of opposite party no. 4 dated 08.01.2022, it is evident that the Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 was issued illegally in respect to the Institution in question. 22. In Paragraph 26 to 27 it has been stated that a writ petition bearing Writ -A No. 14975 of 2019 was filed wherein certain orders were passed on 30.09.2019 with respect to non completion of selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 3 of 2013. As representation was not decided, as ordered by the Court, therefore, Contempt Application No. 670 of 2020 was filed which was disposed of on 04.11.2020 based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the Board that every endeavour shall be made to complete the selection process by May, 2021. When the process of selection was not completed another Contempt Application No. 3069 of 2020 was filed in which time for completing the selection process was extended till 31.12.2021 vide order dated 24.11.2021 and the same was subsequently corrected to 21.01.2022. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was eligible having the requisite qualification and experience for the post of Principal when the vacancy occurred or on the relevant date when the Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 was issued. In fact during the course of argument it was fairly accepted that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for the post of Principal. Selection has not been completed as yet. 23. The following questions arise for consideration in all these writ petitions:- 1. Whether the petitioners were eligible and within the zone of consideration for selection and appointment on the post of Principal which fell vacant in their Institution under Rule 11-(2)(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998 and were advertised in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 11 or Advertisement No. 3 of 2013, as the case may be ? 2. 2. Whether the eligibility of petitioners and their claim to be in the zone of consideration for selection and appointment as Principal under Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998 is to be considered with respect to the date fixed for calling the candidates for interview in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 or 3 of 2013, as the case may be, if not; whether the petitioners have locus standi to maintain these writ petitions staking their claim for being considered in pursuance to the said Advertisements for appointment under Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998 on the post of Principal of the Institution wherein they claim to be working as Ad-hoc Principal as of now ? 24. As is evident from the discussion made hereinabove, the process of selection or appointment on the post of Principal by direct recruitment started either in the year 2011 or in the year 2013. 25. At this stage, it is not out of place to mention that the post of Principal is to be filled by direct recruitment and there is no avenue of regular promotion to the said post. However, there are two sources from which direct recruitment is made. One is from the open market for which candidates have to apply in pursuance to the vacancies advertised. Second source is of two senior most teachers of the institution where the post of Principal is vacant and the same has been advertised by the Board. Though, there are two sources of recruitment but so far as the selection process and the assessment of suitability of candidates is concerned, there is no distinction between two sources, meaning thereby, candidates from both the sources have to face the same selection and their suitability has to be assessed in the same manner, which has to be done on the basis of interview only as there is no written examination prescribed. Nothing to the contrary could be pointed out by learned counsel for the parties in this regard. 26. Nothing to the contrary could be pointed out by learned counsel for the parties in this regard. 26. It is also not out of place to mention that even if a Lecturer is not amongst the two senior most Lecturers of the Institution so as to fall within the ambit of Rule 11-(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998, even then, he can very well apply for direct recruit on the post of Principal in pursuance to the advertisement issued based on open market recruitment, if he is otherwise eligible. 27. It is not the case of any of the petitioners herein that even though they were not amongst the two senior most teachers they had applied for being considered for direct recruitment from the open market in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 or Advertisement No. 3 of 2013, as the case may be. In fact none of the petitioners have been able to establish that they were eligible and were fulfilling the qualification and/or experience, on the relevant date for being considered in pursuance to the said selections. In fact, none of the petitioners have been able to establish before the Court that they were amongst the two senior most teachers in the year of recruitment when the vacancies occurred and were determined and / or when the requisition was sent and vacancies were advertised. The facts clearly show that the factual position is otherwise, as already discussed. 28. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1982’) came into effect from 20.04.1998. Ever Since then all recruitment to the post of Principal or Headmaster of an education institution is to be undertaken by the Board constituted under the said Act, 1982. 29. Section 2 (k) of the Act, 1982 defines ‘Teacher’ to mean a person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and includes a Principal or a Headmaster. 30. Section 2 (l) defines ‘year of recruitment’ to mean a period of twelve months commencing from first date of July of a calendar year. 31. Section 10 of the said Act, 1982, as existing at the relevant time, read as under:- “10. 30. Section 2 (l) defines ‘year of recruitment’ to mean a period of twelve months commencing from first date of July of a calendar year. 31. Section 10 of the said Act, 1982, as existing at the relevant time, read as under:- “10. Procedure of selection by direct recruitment.-(1) For the purpose of making appointment of a teacher, by direct recruitment the management shall determine the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment and in the case of a post other than the post of Head of the Institution, also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes of citizens in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and notify the vacancies to the Board in such manner and through such officer or authority as may be prescribed. (2) The procedure of selection of candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of teachers shall be such as may be prescribed : Provided that the Board shall, with a view to inviting talented persons, give wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified under sub-section (1).” 32. As is evident from the above quoted provision the Management is required to determine the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment which as defined in Section 2(l) is from first date of July of a calendar year, obviously till 30 June of the next calendar year. The manner of notification of vacancies to the Board is to be such as may be prescribed. The procedure of selection of candidates for direct recruitment to the post of teachers including Principal and Headmasters shall be such as may be prescribed. 33. The aforesaid prescription is contained in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereafter referred as ‘the Rules, 1998’). As per Rule 10 thereof-Principal of an Intermediate College or Headmaster of a High School is to be filled by direct recruitment. 34. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 deals with determination and notification of vacancies. 35. 33. The aforesaid prescription is contained in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereafter referred as ‘the Rules, 1998’). As per Rule 10 thereof-Principal of an Intermediate College or Headmaster of a High School is to be filled by direct recruitment. 34. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 deals with determination and notification of vacancies. 35. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1982 deals with determination of vacancies by the Management in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 1982 as quoted hereinabove and their notification through the Inspector to the Board in the manner provided thereafter. 36. As per Sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 - the statement of vacancies for each category of posts to be filled in by direct recruitment including the vacancies that are likely to arise due to retirement on the last day of the year of recruitment, shall be sent in quadruplicate, in the proforma given in Appendix “A” by the Management to the Inspector by July 15 of the year of recruitment and the Inspector shall, after verification from the record of his office, prepare consolidated statement of vacancies of the district subject-wise in respect of the vacancies of lecturer grade, and group wise in respect of vacancies of Trained graduates grade. The consolidated statement so prepared shall, along with the copies of statement received from the Management, be sent by the Inspector to the Board by July 31 with a copy thereof to the Joint Director. Provided that if the State Government is satisfied that it is expedient so to do, it may, by order in writing, fix other dates for notification of vacancies to the Board in respect of any particular year of recruitment. 37. Now, Sub-rule (2)(b) of the Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 is relevant in this case, which provides that with regard to the post of Principal or Headmaster, the Management shall also forward the names of two senior most teachers, along with copies of their service records (including character rolls) and such other records or particulars as the Board may require, from time to time. 38. 38. Now, on a reading of this Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 what comes out is that while sending the statement of vacancies for the post of teachers including the posts of Principal or Headmaster as is referred in Sub-rule (2)(a), with regard to the post of Principal or Headmaster, the Management shall also forward the names of two senior most teachers. The use of the word ‘also’ makes it abundantly clear that these two names of senior most teachers for consideration for selection to the post of Principal or Headmaster have to be sent along with the statement of vacancies, which is required to be sent under Rule (2)(a) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998, by the Management to the District Inspector of School by July 15 and by the District Inspector of School to the Board by July 31. In this context it is relevant to reiterate that the first day of the year of recruitment is 1st of July, therefore, obviously this entire exercise is to be done by the start of the year of recruitment. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the names of two senior most persons is to be sent by the Management subsequently as and when requisitioned by the Board for the purposes of interview, is thus, not supported from the scheme of the Rules referred hereinabove. 39. Furthermore, while sending the statement of vacancies and the name of two senior most teachers as referred, copies of their service records including character roll are also required to be sent to the Board, meaning thereby, this has also to be done at the time of sending the statement of vacancies, under Rule (2)(a) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 and while sending the names of two senior most teachers referred in Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 and not as and when required by the Board. The words ‘and such other records or particulars as the Board may require, from time to time’ need to be considered by this Court as Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in one of the writ petitions submitted that the use of the words ‘as the Board may require, from time to time’ shows that the names of the two senior most teachers along with their service record is to be sent by the Management to the Board through the D.I.O.S. as and when the Board requires. This contention with utmost respect is not correct. The words ‘as the Board may require, from time to time’, have to be read with preceding words -‘and such other records or particulars’, meaning thereby, after the name of two senior most teachers along with copies of their service records including character roll have been sent along with statement of vacancies, thereafter, if the Board requires such other records or particulars pertaining to the said senior most teachers to be sent, from time to time, then, this additional record would also be sent to the Board as required by it. The words ‘as the Board may require, from time to time’ have to be read and understood accordingly. The contention of Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for appearing for petitioner in one of the writ petitions is, thus, rejected. This Court has no doubt in its mind that the name of the two senior most teachers along with copies of their service record including character roll have to be sent while sending the statement of vacancies, as discussed hereinabove, and not subsequently. After having done so if at any subsequent time the Board requires any further records or particulars relating to the senior most teachers then the same would be sent. This is how the said Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1998 has to be read and understood. 40. Now, from a reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, as it is evident that the names of two senior most teachers is to be sent along with the statement of vacancies (so called requisition), obviously the teachers have to be amongst the two senior most in the said recruitment year at the relevant time when the statement is being sent and not thereafter, for the purpose of Rule 11(2)(a). 41. 41. In this very context it is fruitful to refer to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1990 (1) UPLBEC 539 ; Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad and Ors. The facts of the said case were that a vacancy arose on the post of Principal in the institution on 30.06.1986. The petitioner-Nand Kishore Prasad was the third senior most teacher in the college at that time. The first senior most teacher Shri Parashu Ram Upadhyay retired on 30.09.1987. In this context the petitioner's contention was that after 1987, when the selection was made, since Shri Parashu Ram Upadhyay had retired, his i.e. the petitioner-Nand Kishore Prasad's name should have been sent by the Management for consideration for the post of Principal of the College. The Division Bench of this Court considered Rule 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and opined that "the said provision clearly intends that on the date when the vacancy arose, on that date, the management is called upon to find out who are the two senior most teachers whose names are to be forwarded to the Commission hence the date when the vacancy arose would be the relevant date for the purposes of Rule Rule 4(ii). Merely because of a subsequent event, if another teacher becomes the senior most teacher in the college, he does not have a right to ask the management to send his name also. If the interpretation is not taken then the result will be the process of selection by the Commission will never be completed as the name of the senior most teachers would go on changing and the process of forwarding names will also continue. This does not take away the right of the said teacher to be considered for the post of Principal of the institution if he has applied for the same." Accordingly, the Division Bench did not find merit in the submission made before it and dismissed the writ petition. 42. This Division Bench judgment in Nand Kishore Prasad's case (supra) has been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shayam Lal and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; Civil Misc. 42. This Division Bench judgment in Nand Kishore Prasad's case (supra) has been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shayam Lal and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31736 of 2011 decided on 29.08.2011 wherein a similar issue came up for consideration and the co-ordinate Bench considered the issue in the light of the Rules, 1983 as also Rules, 1998 which are being considered in this case and after quoting the Division Bench judgment in Nand Kishore Prasad's case (supra) which was with reference to 1983 Rules opined that the 1998 Rules do not alter the aforesaid position, meaning thereby, the co-ordinate Bench was also of the opinion that the teacher has to be amongst the two senior most teachers at the relevant time of sending requisition during the year of recruitment for being within the zone of consideration under Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998 just as was the case under Rule 4(ii) of the Rules, 1983. The co-ordinate Bench in Shyam Lal's case (supra) held as under:- "It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause 3-A of Appendix ''A' of the 1983 Rules the names of the two senior most teachers possessing the requisite qualifications for the post of the Principal in order of seniority and copies of the service records (including character rolls) had to be sent with the requisition but Appendix ''A' to the 1998 Rules is silent on this issue. He, therefore, submits that when the said Appendix ''A' to the 1998 Rules does not require the names of the two senior most teachers in the Institution to be mentioned and nor does it require the copies of the service records (including character rolls) to be sent with the requisition, as was the position under Appendix ''A' to the 1983 Rules, it should be presumed that the Board should call for interview under the 1998 Rules the two senior most teachers working in the Institution at the time of interview. It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board committed an illegality in not calling the petitioners for interview." 43. It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board committed an illegality in not calling the petitioners for interview." 43. After noticing the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it examined the issue in the light of the 1983 Rules as also the 1998 Rules and the Division Bench judgment in Nand Kishore Prasad's case (supra) which was based on 1983 Rules and held as under:- "The 1998 Rules do not alter the aforesaid position. Under Rule 10 (a) of the 1998 Rules, the post of Principal of an Intermediate College is to be filled up by direct recruitment and for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of teacher, which includes the Principal, the Management has to notify the vacancy through the Inspector to the Board in the proforma given in Appendix ''A' by 15th July of the year of recruitment. Such statement is to be sent by the Inspector to the Board by 31st July with a copy to the Joint Director of Education. Rule 11(2)(b) of the 1998 Rules provides that with regard to the post of Principal or the Headmaster, the Management shall also forward the names of two senior most teachers along with the copies of the service records (including character rolls) and such other records or particulars as the Board may require from time to time. Rule 12(6) of the 1998 Rules makes the position more clear. It provides that in respect of the post of Principal or the Headmaster of an Institution, the Board shall also, in addition, call for interview the two senior most teachers of the Institution whose names are forwarded by the Management through the Inspector under Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules. It is, therefore, clear that such information required under Rule 11(2)(b) of the 1998 Rules is to be sent with the requisition by 15th July of the year of recruitment. What needs to be noticed is that the Division Bench of this Court in Nand Kishore Prasad (supra) had examined a similar controversy in the context of Rule 4(1) of the 1983 Rules and the Division Bench decision is not based on what is contained in Appendix ''A' of the 1983 Rules but on the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 4(1). Rules 11(2)(b) and Rule 12(6) of the 1998 Rules make it abundantly clear that the names and records of two senior most teachers of the Institution is required to be sent with the requisition and these two teachers whose names have been forwarded by the Board under Rule 11(2)(b) have to be called for interview. Thus, if these two senior most teachers are not to be called for interview, if they have attained the age of superannuation in the meantime, the next two senior most teachers cannot claim that they should be called for interview merely because Appendix ''A' to the 1998 Rules, which is merely a proforma, does not contain a Column similar to Column No.3A of the 1983 Rules. ............................... As noticed hereinabove, Appendix ''A' to the 1998 Rules does not make any change in the situation as from a reading of Rules 11(2)(a) and (b) and Rule 12(6) of the 1998 Rules, it is clear that the Management has to forward the names of two senior most teachers with the requisition with copies of service record (including character rolls) or such records or particulars as the Board may require from time to time." 44. The co-ordinate Bench also considered the contention as was raised before this Court by Shri Sharad Pathak learned counsel for petitioner, that there is a change in the proforma annexed as Appendix "A" to the Rules, 1992 vis-a-vis the proforma contained in the earlier Rules but rejected it as is evident from the extract quoted above. 45. The substantive provision is contained in Rule 11(2)(a) and (b) with regard to sending of names and merely because the proforma contained in Appendix -'A' of the Rules, 1998 does not mention about sending details of two senior most teachers though it was mentioned in the earlier rules, it would not make any difference as the proforma can not override the rule which clearly stipulates the sending of names and records of two senior most teachers and the time when it is to be sent. This aspect has already been dealt with hereinabove and the contention of Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner to the contrary is rejected. 46. In Shyam Lal's case (supra) reference was also made to judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.67834 of 2009 (Rajjo Babu Kushwaha Vs. This aspect has already been dealt with hereinabove and the contention of Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner to the contrary is rejected. 46. In Shyam Lal's case (supra) reference was also made to judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.67834 of 2009 (Rajjo Babu Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 14th December, 2009 wherein it was held as under:- "Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner as on the date of consideration by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board is the senior most teacher is available in the institution inasmuch as the other 2 teachers Ram Avtar Tripathi and Sri Shri Krishna Shukla were continuing under the benefit of regulation 21 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In short, the submission is precisely that in the event the process of selection is delayed and the senior most teacher retired then to fall in line like the petitioner should be called for interview. The aforesaid contention would amount to modifying the terms of the Rules itself which does not make any such provision inasmuch as in the instant case it is undisputed that the date of advertisement is 6.9.2008. On the said date, 2 senior most teachers were admittedly Ram Avtar Tripathi and Sri Shri Krishna Shukla and the petitioner did not fall within that category. The petitioner, therefore, now cannot be permitted to subsequently raise his claim merely because the interviews were delayed and are now be held in the year 2009. The disqualification of Ram Avtar Tripathi and Sri Shri Krishna Shukla does not automatically get converted into the benefit of the petitioner as the rule does not permit to do so. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed." 47. Furthermore, another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 36881 of 2000; Prem Kishor Sharma Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board and Ors. had the occasion to consider this issue and observed that in respect to forwarding of names of two senior most teachers along with requisition by Management, the Court did not find any substantial difference between Rules, 1983 vis-a-vis Rules, 1995 and a subsequent third set of Rules, which came into force in 1998 i.e. U.P. Secondary Education Services Section Board Rules, 1998. It referred to the Division Bench judgment in Nand Kshore Prasad's case (supra) as also the co-ordinate Bench judgment in Shyam Lal's case (supra) and expressed its whole hearted agreement with the reasons given in the above judgments and opined that in its view, name of senior most teacher will not change with the subsequent retirements of senior most teachers, whose names are sent or liable to be sent by Management when requisition is forwarded to UPSESSB since qualification and other requirements are in the context of 'year of recruitment' and it is not a situation which would continue to go on changing depending on the date on which Commission advertises the vacancies or hold interview. 48. In the context of eligibility and qualification etc. it also referred to a 5-Judges Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Sadhna Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2017 (6) ADJ 418 wherein it has been held, in the context of issues before it, that, for the purpose of eligibility qualification etc., it is the 'year of recruitment' following date of vacancy which is relevant and not an uncertain date which Management decides to sent requisition or any other similar uncertain event. 49. The said Bench also considered the judgment of another Division Bench in Bhola Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P.; Special Appeal No. 258 of 2010 decided on 12.03.2010 wherein the judgment of the Single Judge was set-aside noticing the contention of learned counsel for appellant that date of requisition could not be the cut off date for the purposes of selection of candidates and the rival contention on behalf of the respondent that the date of advertisement is the appropriate cut off date as also the contention of the appellant that the date of interview is the cut off date, for the reason and with the observation -"one aspect is very clear that both the contesting parties before us are not on the issue that the date of requisition will the appropriate cut off date. Having so, whether the date of advertisement or the date of interview will be the cut off date is required to be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge once again." Accordingly, the matter was remanded back. Having so, whether the date of advertisement or the date of interview will be the cut off date is required to be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge once again." Accordingly, the matter was remanded back. The co-ordinate Bench in Prem Kishor Sharma's case (supra) considered this aspect of the matter and held that the Division Bench in Bhola Nath Singh's case (supra) did not decide any issue, whereas, the co-ordinate Bench in Shyam Lal and Anr.'s case (supra) had decided the issue on merits. Accordingly, it concurred with the view taken in Shyam Lal and Anr.'s case (supra) as referred hereinabove. Therefore, the contention of Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner that after remand the learned Single Judge has not yet expressed its opinion finally in Bhola Nath Singh's case (supra), does not helps his cause nor does it persuade this Court to take any other view of the matter, as, other Single Benches have rendered their opinion and this Court is in agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions by co-ordinate Benches. The Division Bench in Bhola Nath's case (supra) did not decide any issue on merits. 50. Furthermore, the same view has been expressed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32406 of 2011; Jagdish Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 16.08.2011. 51. Now, Rule 12 of the Rules, 1998 needs to be considered. Rule 12 of the Rules, 1998 reads as under:- "12. Procedure for direct recruitment.-(1) The Board shall, in respect of the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment, advertise the vacancies including those reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens in atleast two daily newspapers, having wide circulation in the State, and call for the applications for being considered for selection in the pro forma published in the advertisement. For the post of Principal of an Intermediate College or the Headmaster of a High School, the name and place of the institution shall also be mentioned in the advertisement and the candidates shall be required to give the choice of not more than three institutions in order of preference and if he wishes to be considered for any particular institution or institutions and for no other institution, he may mention the fact in his application. (2) The Board shall scrutinize the applications and in respect of the post of teacher in Lecturers and Trained graduates grade, shall conduct written examination. The written examination shall consist of one paper of general aptitude test of two hours duration based on the subject. The centres for conducting written examination shall be fixed in district headquarters only and the invigilators shall be paid honorarium at such rate as the Board may like to fix. (3) The Board shall evaluate the answer sheets through examiner to be appointed by the Board or through Computer and the examiner shall be paid honorarium at the rate to be fixed by the Board. 4. The Board shall prepare list for each category of posts on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination and marks for special merits as follows:- (a) 85 per cent marks on the basis of written examination; (b) 10 per cent marks on the basis of interview which shall be divided in the following manner namely:- (i) 4% marks on the basis of general knowledge; (ii) 3% marks on the basis of personality test, (iii) 3% marks on the basis of ability of expression. (c) 5 per cent marks on the basis of following special merits namely - (i) 2% marks for having Doctorate Degree; (ii) 2% marks for having Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree; (iii) 1% marks for bachelor of education (B.Ed.) degree: Provided that no marks under this clause shall be awarded to a candidate who has obtained marks under sub-clause (ii), (iv) 1% marks for the participation in any national level sports competition through state team. 5. The Board shall in respect to the selection for the post of Head Master and Principals, allot the marks in the following manner :- (i) 60% marks on the basis of quality points specified in Appendix 'D'. (ii) 16% marks for having experience more than the required experience in the manner that 1% marks shall be awarded for each year of such experience, subject to a maximum of 16% marks. (iii) 2% marks for research paper published in reputed journals in the manner that 1/2% marks shall be allotted for each research paper subject to maximum 2% marks. (iv) 7% marks for having Doctorate degree or 3% for Master of Education (M.Ed.) provided that only one degree shall be considered under this clause. (iii) 2% marks for research paper published in reputed journals in the manner that 1/2% marks shall be allotted for each research paper subject to maximum 2% marks. (iv) 7% marks for having Doctorate degree or 3% for Master of Education (M.Ed.) provided that only one degree shall be considered under this clause. (v) The Board shall hold interview of the candidates and 15% marks shall be allotted for interview. Marks in the interview shall be divided in the following manner :- (a) 6% marks on the basis of subject/general know ledge; (b) 4% marks on the basis of personality test; (c) 5% marks on the basis of ability of expression. (6) The Board, having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens in respect of the post of teacher in Lecturers and Trained graduates grade, call for interview such candidates who have secured the maximum marks under sub-clause (4) above/and for the post of Principal/Headmaster, call for interview such candidates who have secured maximum marks under sub-clause (5) above in such manner that the number of candidates shall not be less than three and not more than five times of the number of vacancies : Provided that in respect of the post of the Principal or Headmaster of an Institution, the Board shall also in addition call for interview two senior-most teachers of the Institution whose names are forwarded by the Management through Inspector under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. 7. The marks obtained in the quality points as referred to in sub-rule (5) by the eligible candidates shall not be disclosed to the members of the interview board. (8) The Board then, for each category of post, prepare panel of those found most suitable for appointment in order of merit as disclosed by the marks obtained by them after adding the marks obtained under sub-clause (4) or sub-clause (5) above, as the case may be, with the marks obtained in the interview. The panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster shall be prepared institution-wise after giving due regard to the preference given by a candidate, if any, for appointment in a particular institution whereas for the posts in the lecturers and trained graduates de, it shall be prepared subject-wise and group-wise respectively. The panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster shall be prepared institution-wise after giving due regard to the preference given by a candidate, if any, for appointment in a particular institution whereas for the posts in the lecturers and trained graduates de, it shall be prepared subject-wise and group-wise respectively. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the name of the candidate who has higher quality points shall be placed higher in the panel and if the marks obtained in the quality points are also equal, then the name of the candidate who is older in age shall be placed higher. In the panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster, the number of names shall be three times of the number of the vacancy and for the post of teachers in the Lecturers and Trained graduate grade, it shall be larger (but not larger than twenty-five per cent) than the number of vacancies. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-rule the word 'group-wise' means in accordance with the groups specified in the Explanation to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. (9) At the time of interview of candidates, for the post of teachers in Lecturers and Trained graduates grade the Board shall, after showing the list of the institutions which have notified the vacancy to it, require the candidate to give, if he so desires, the choice of not more than five such institutions in order of preference, where, if selected, he may wish to be appointed. (10) The Board shall after preparing the panel in accordance with sub-rule (8), allocate the institutions to the selected candidates in respect of the posts of teachers in Lecturers and Trained graduates grade in such manner that the candidate whose name appears at the top of the panel shall be allocated the institution of his first preference given in accordance with sub-rule (9). Where a selected candidate cannot be allocated any of the institutions of his preference on the ground that the candidates placed higher in the panel have already been allocated such institutions and there remains no vacancy in them, the Board may allocate any institution to him as it may deem fit. Where a selected candidate cannot be allocated any of the institutions of his preference on the ground that the candidates placed higher in the panel have already been allocated such institutions and there remains no vacancy in them, the Board may allocate any institution to him as it may deem fit. (11) The Board shall forward the panel prepared under sub-rule (8) along with the name of the institution allocated to selected candidates in accordance with sub-rule (10) to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Joint Director and also notify them on its notice board." 52. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Rules, 1998 provides that the Board shall, in respect of the vacancies to be filled by the direct recruitment, advertise the vacancies including the reserved vacancies and call for the applications for being considered for selection in the proforma published in the advertisement. It needs to be reiterated at this stage that so far as the post of Principal or the Headmaster is concerned, the same have to be filled by direct recruitment. Even for the purposes of direct recruitment as already stated that there two sources, one is from the open market for which the eligible persons would apply after the vacancies are advertised under Rule 12(1), however, as stated earlier there is another source which is referred in Rule 11(2)(b), according to which the names of two senior most teachers of the institution where the post of Principal or Headmaster is vacant, is required to be sent to the Board. Even at the cast of repetition it needs to be emphasized that though there are two sources of recruitment but the process of selection and assessment of suitability of the candidates from both sources is the same and there is no distinction in this regard nor any weightage is given to the candidates from either of the sources and there is nothing in the provisions of the Act, 1982 or the Rules, 1998 which could show otherwise. 53. In this context, the provisions to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 12 off the Rules, 1998 refers to the interview. 53. In this context, the provisions to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 12 off the Rules, 1998 refers to the interview. In this context it needs to be reiterated that for the post of Principal or Headmaster there is no written examination and the assessment of suitability of candidates is on the basis of quality points based on educational qualifications, experience and interview as is referred in Rule 12(5) and (6) of the Rules, 1998 read with Rule 6(1)(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Section Board (Procedure and Conduct of Business) (I) Regulations, 1998. The proviso to Sub-rule (6) again says that in respect of the post of the Principal or Headmaster of an Institution, the Board shall also in addition call for interview two senior most teachers of the Institution whose names are forwarded by the Management through Inspector under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. Thus, the two sources of recruitment as referred earlier are evident and it is also clear that there is no distinction with regard to assessment of their suitability for the post in question. The only distinction appears to be that if the one of the two senior most teachers is selected then he would invariably be allocated the same institution where he is already working unless there are good reasons for not doing so. 54. It has already been noticed earlier that from the scheme of the Act, 1982 and the Rules, 1998 it is evident that even if a teacher is not amongst the two senior most teachers, he can still apply for being considered for direct recruitment to the post of Principal if he otherwise fulfilling the qualification and experience prescribed. 55. Section 16(E) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with Appendix-'A' to Chapter-II of the Regulations made thereunder prescribe the requisite qualification and experience for the post in question. 56. Now, as is evident from the facts of individual writ petitions discussed earlier, at the relevant time in the year of recruitment referable to the two advertisements bearing No. 1 of 2011 and 3 of 2013 none of the petitioners were amongst the two senior most teachers either on the date of occurrence of vacancy or sending of requisition so as to fall within the zone of consideration under Rule 11(2)(b) of Rules, 1998, therefore, on this ground itself, their claim falls. 57. 57. Furthermore, from the facts already discussed earlier it is evident that none of the petitioners possessed the requisite experience and/or qualification for the post of Principal/ Headmaster, as the case may be, at the relevant time with reference to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 or 3 of 2013 that is why their case is that the eligibility and qualification should be seen on the date of interview and not on the last date of submission of application in pursuance to the advertisements referred above. 58. In this context, they contend that the advertisement was not for the senior most teachers and they were not required to apply in pursuance to the advertisements. This contention has been opposed tooth and nail by both the counsel for Board. This contention is fallacious, firstly, the petitioners were not amongst the two senior most teachers at the relevant time and therefore, they were not entitled to be considered at all in pursuance to the said advertisement. Date of interview has no relevance in this regard. Secondly, even if, this aspect is ignored for a moment for the sake discussion, they had to be eligible and fulfilling the requisite qualification and experience at least on the last date for submission of application as mentioned in the advertisement, if not earlier. There can be no doubt that this qualification and experience could not have been acquired by them subsequent to the year of recruitment or the advertisement nor after the last date for submission of application under the said advertisement. This aspect has already been considered in the decisions cited hereinabove with which this Court concurs. 59. Mileage sought to be drawn by the petitioners based on the Circulars issued in January, 2022, requiring, as alleged, the details of two senior most teachers to be uploaded online is misplaced and based on their misreading. The Circulars dated 01.01.2022, 02.01.2022, 05.01.2022, 08.01.2022 and 10.01.2022 do not invite the names of two senior most teachers afresh and this is evident from a bare reading of the said circulars. The Circulars dated 01.01.2022, 02.01.2022, 05.01.2022, 08.01.2022 and 10.01.2022 do not invite the names of two senior most teachers afresh and this is evident from a bare reading of the said circulars. The Circular dated 01.01.2022 a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the Writ -A No. 364 of 2022 has been issued in view of the orders passed on 24.11.2021 and 03.12.2021 in Contempt Petition No. 3069 of 2021 with respect to Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 so that the selection process may be completed in a time bound manner considering the delay of 10 years in doing the same. In view of another order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 10609 of 2021 the Board has decided that those candidates who had completed 62 years of age and had retired or such senior most teachers who were working after retirement till the end of academic session, would not be called for interview. This is in the context of such senior most teachers whose names had been sent under Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998 in the context of Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 and there is nothing in the circulars to indicate that fresh names of two senior most teachers have been invited. What has been stated in the circulars is that the Board had taken a decision to get the information/details of candidates who had submitted applications offline to be verified online. The Court has carefully perused all the circulars referred hereinabove which are on record. In some of the writ petitions the typed copies are incorrect and the words 'Fresh Abhiyarthiya' has been used, whereas, the term as pointed out by Shri Rishabh Tripathi and Shri R.K. Singh Suryawansi is ^lkis{k çkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa* and not ^Ýsl vH;fFkZ;ksa* . This error exists in the typed copy of circular dated 10.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 annexed as Annexure No. 8 and 9 of Writ -A No. 364 of 2022, but, the typed copy of Circular dated 08.01.2022 annexed as Annexure No. 6 does not contain this error. Moreover, paragraph 1 of Circular dated 02.01.2022 categorically states that such online verification/application shall not be considered as new applications. This exercise therefore is for verification of details of earlier eligible candidate and not for new candidates who may have become eligible subsequently. 60. Moreover, paragraph 1 of Circular dated 02.01.2022 categorically states that such online verification/application shall not be considered as new applications. This exercise therefore is for verification of details of earlier eligible candidate and not for new candidates who may have become eligible subsequently. 60. The Scheme of the Rules has already been discussed which do not permit persons having acquired requisite eligibility subsequently, to be called for selection. 61. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that none of the petitioners were amongst the two senior most teachers of the institution as per Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules, 1998 at the relevant time of sending requisition hence they were not within the zone of consideration for the post of Principal or Headmaster advertised vide Advertisement No. 1 of 2011 or 3 of 2013. They did not fulfill the requisite qualification or experience at the relevant time. Their eligibility and claim of being within zone of consideration is not to be fixed on the basis of date of Interview in respect of Advertisement No. 01 of 2013 or 03 of 2013. Therefore, they do not have any locus standi to maintain these writ petitions in their present form, especially as, they have not challenged the said advertisements on the ground of inordinate delay of about 10 or more years in holding the selections, except in Writ -A No. 317 of 2022, where, Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 has been challenged but not on this ground and bereft of this ground, the challenge is not maintainable at the behest of said petitioners, for the reasons already given, as already discussed above. 62. All the questions framed are answered accordingly. 63. The petitioners may if otherwise permissible in law and if there is no order or direction of the Courts for completing the selection process pertaining to Advertisement No. 03 of 2013 and if the selection has not been completed as yet in the sense Interview etc. has not been held, raise a challenge on the ground of long delay in completing the same if they are otherwise eligible for the posts in question, subject of course to the rights of opposite parties to raise the plea of delay and laches, if any etc., in this regard. has not been held, raise a challenge on the ground of long delay in completing the same if they are otherwise eligible for the posts in question, subject of course to the rights of opposite parties to raise the plea of delay and laches, if any etc., in this regard. As regards Advertisement No. 01 of 2011 the selection is over with regard to petitioners institution, therefore, it is too late in the day for them. 64. This apart, it is also for the State Government and/or the Board to consider as to how far it is justified and reasonable to keep a recruitment process pending for almost 10 or more years, during which many of the candidates whether they be from one source or another, for direct recruitment, may have become ineligible for various reasons such as exceeding maximum age or having retired etc. and whether in such a scenario if the recruitment process is not completed within reasonable period of 2 or 3 years, should not the advertisement be cancelled and vacant posts be re-advertised so that others who may have become eligible for consideration from either source of recruitment in the interregnum, may also participate therein ? Appropriate measures should be taken in this regard for the future. 65. Accordingly, subject to the above, all the writ petitions are dismissed.