- (1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit filed for declaration that the appellant was permanent principal of the college since its upgrading on 1-7-1965 and a permanent injunction restraining the Managing Committee from interfering in discharge of his duties as Principal. It was also prayed that the selectior for the post of Principal held on 8-6-1967 the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 8-6-1967 and the approval given by Deputy Director Education (hereinafter referred to as D. D. E.) on 29-8-1967 may be declared illegal and void.
(2.) In 1957 appellant was appointed as Head Master of the Junior High School. Within one year the School was upgraded as High School and with it the appellant was also promoted as Principal. On 1-7-1965 it was upgraded again as Intermediate College. May be due to appellant's efforts. On 14-8- 1965 the Manager of the College wrote a letter to D. D. E. to promote the appellant as Principal as he was qualified. The correspondence went on till 1967 when the Managing Committee with approval of D. D. E. advertised the post for appointment by selection instead of promotion. The selection was held on 8-6-1967 in which the appellant also appeared but unfortunately was not selected. The trial court decreed the suit but the order was set aside in appeal. The appellate court held that appellant had no vested right to be promoted as Principal when the college was upgraded. Nor was he ever approved for appointment as Principal by D. D. E. It is the legality of these findings which have been challenged by the learned counsel for appellant.
(3.) Proviso to Regulation 16 of Chapter III reads as under : "that when an institution is raised from High School to Intermediate the post of Principal shall be filled by promotion of Head Master if he is qualified, possessed good record of service and is approved, in the manner prescribed in the Act." For the purpose of this appeal it may be assumed that appellant was duly qualified and possessed a good record of service although finding by lower appellate court is otherwise. Even then the plaintiff could succeed only if his promotion was approved in the manner prescribed in the Act. According to learned counsel the only manner provided in the Act is in S. 16-F and as that cannot apply to the case of promotee it should be assumed that promotion of the plaintiff was as a matter of right and it was not necessary that his name should have been recommended and approved by the D. D. E. The argument does not appear to be convincing. The words 'in the manner prescribed in the Act' have to be read in the manner so as to be consistent with the Act and rules framed thereunder. Section 16-F of U. P. Intermediate Education Act provides that if a teacher or a principal is appointed his appointment shall be approved by the District Inspector of Schools or Deputy Director of Education as the case may be. The approval is accorded on the recommendation of selection committee. For cases of promotion it is obvious that there is no selection committee and the name has to be recommended by Managing Committee. Therefore, in case of promotee instead of selection committee it is the Managing Committee which has to be read. In any case by omission of mentioning the words 'managing committee' it cannot be held that the plaintiff was entitled to be promoted as a matter of right without recommendation and approval.;