Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - (1.) THE dispute giving rise to this petition concerns the post of principal of an intermediate college recognized under and governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982 (the 1982 Act' for short). The tie for ad hoc appointment to this post is between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 Sheo Bahadur Singh. Admittedly, the Petitioner is at present the senior -most lecturer in the institution and, in the list of seniority the fourth Respondent ranks third. The institution, however preferred to appoint the fourth Respondent on ad hoc basis in the purported exercise of powers under Section 18 of the 1982 Act.
(2.) THE aforesaid appointment was challenged by three senior most teachers by means of a writ petition no 3662 of 1989 on the ground that the appointment was ex -facie improper and illegal. The contention was that the appointment should have been made by promotion from amongst the existing lecturers in accordance with the approved list of seniority in which, at that time, the fourth Respondent ranked below all these three Petitioners. This petition was eventually allowed by this Court by an order dated May 10, 1990 and the appointment of the fourth Respondent was quashed. The latter unsuccessfully appealed before the Supreme Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, their Lordships observed that regular appointment of the principal be made in the prescribed manner latest by the end of June 1991. Their Lordships further observed that the order passed by the High Court in the above writ petition directing the Management to make ad hoc appointment of the principal in accordance with law by February 1990 was, however, ordered to be carried into effect in the meantime. Pending the regular appointment to the post, the Management again handed over the officiating charge to the fourth, Respondent despite the fact that both the Petitioner and another lecturer Sri B.S. Sisodia were senior to that Respondent. It is this latest action of the Management of handing over the charge to the fourth Respondent with effect from February 1. 1991 that is assailed in this petition. Challenging the officiating appointment of the fourth Respondent counsel for the Petitioner urged that even for making ad hoc appointment the Management should have gone strictly in order of seniority. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on three decisions of this Court in Charu Chandra Tewari v. Committee of Management, (1989) 1 UP LB and EC 666 and Smt. Rama Rati v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1987 UP LB and EC 289. These decisions do undoubtedly support the - contention of the learned Counsel and hold that even in the matter of ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the 1982 Act, regard should be had to the seniority of the lecturers in filing the post of the principal.
(3.) THE stand taken in the counter affidavit, however, is that the Management is not obliged to go by the seniority of the lecturers in making appointment of the principal of an intermediate college on ad hoc basis. Alternatively, it is contended that the Petitioner was not considered fit for appointment in view of the remarks made in the character roll of the Petitioner by the Management. For the Respondents, reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on some unreported decisions copies whereof have been annexed as CA -1 and CA -2 to the counter affidavit as well as a reported decision in the case of Yogendra Prasad Chaturvedi v. Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, (1985)2 UP LB and EC 1531.;