Om Prakash, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the committee of management, respondent No. 2 to promote him as ad hoc Principal of the D.A.V. Inter College, Kanpur as he is the senior most lecturer. Also it is prayed that the respondent No. 2 be directed not to give effect to the resolution dated 16th July, 1989, Annexure 8 -A to the writ petition appointing the respondent No. 3 as ad hoc Principal of the aforesaid College. By the order dated 5.10.1990, the petitioner was directed to serve the respondents personally. From the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner, it appears that whereas the respondent No. 2 accepted the notice, the respondent No. 3 refused to take the notice and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is deemed to have been served sufficiently. No counter affidavit has been filed either by the respondent No. 2 or by the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed a writ petition No. of 1990 which was disposed of by the order dated 2.4.1990 directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's representation regarding matter of seniority. Pursuant to that order, the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 1.6.1990, Annexure 15 to the writ petition held that the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 3 and he directed the committee of management to proceed accordingly in the matter of the appointment of the Principal on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 by the letter dated 4.6.1990, Annexure 16 to the writ petition that he be appointed as ad hoc Principal of the aforesaid college. By the letter dated 7.6.1990, Annexure 17 to the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 informed that the respondent No. 3 had been appointed directly under section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission/Board Act, 1982. Then again, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 that he being senior to the respondent No. 3 ought to have been appointed as Principal under the provisions of section 18 of the Act, 1982 and no direct appointment could have been made by the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 4.9.1990, Annexure 19 to the writ petition. When the respondent No. 2 failed to execute the direction being given by the respondent No. 1 in the letter dated 4.9.1990, the petitioner came up to this Court on second round. So far as the question of seniority of the petitioner is concerned, the respondent No. 2 himself stated in his letter dated 7.6.1990, Annexure 17 to the writ petition that the petitioner would be made senior to the respondent No. 3 as per direction of the respondent No. 1. However, he took up the stand that the respondent No. 3 had been appointed directly under Section 18 of the Act, 1982.
(3.) THE question for consideration is whether the respondent No. 3 could be legally appointed directly under Section 18 by the respondent No. 2. It is almost settled law that ad hoc appointment on the post of Principal could be made from the senior most lecturer working in the college and direct recruitment could be resorted to only when the senior most lecturer suitable for the post is not available. (See Charu Chandra Tiwari v. District Inspector of Schools Deoria & others : 1990 -I -UPLBEC 160.;