- (1.) THE petitioner Paras Nath Pandey was employed as an officiating Principal in Sri Sangved Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Tameshwar Nath, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the College ). This college is affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi (herein after referred to as the University ). This college is governed by the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act) and the Statutes relating to the University. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Act) is also applicable to the services of teaching staff working in the college. 1. THE petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant teacher in the college on August 1, 1958. He was promoted to the post of Sahayak Vyakaran Adhyapak and then as Head of the Department of Vyakaran. With effect from July 1, 1991 he was working as officiating Principal of the college. Although he was working as officiating Principal for the last more than two years, he was not paid his salary in the grade of principal, i. e. Rs. 2000-4000. He filed representations dated 26-2-1992 and 15-4-1993 before the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, bat the same remained undecided. THE Mana ger of the college issued an advertisement dated 2-8-1993 and 21-8-1993 in a daily newspaper, namely, 'aaj' published from Gorakhpur, thereby inviting applications for the post of Principal. On having come to know of this fact, the petitioner made a representation to the Manager of the college that his said action was unauthorised as the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, for short the 'commission' only could make regular appointment and the Manager had no jurisdiction to do so. This representation of the petitioner remained undecided. Resultantly the petitioner filed Civil Misc. W; it Petition No. 37361 of 1993 thereby arraying State of U. P. through Secretary, Director of Education (Higher Education), U. P. , Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, District Inspector of Schools, Basti, Inspector Sanskrit Pathshalas, U. P. and the Committee of Management, Sri Sangved Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Tameshwar Nath, Deoria as res pondents 1 to 7 respectively. Through this writ petition he has sought a mandamus (i) restraining the respondents from filling up the post of Principal in the College ; (ii) quashing the advertisement dated 2-8-1993 and 21-8-1993 published in the newspaper ; (iii) restraining the respondents from interfering with the working of the petitioner as officiating Principal; and (iv) commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-4,000 with effect from 1-7-1991 till date. 3. On 8-10-1993 the following order was passed by Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition : "sri R. P. Misra has put up appearance for respondent No. 7. Res pondent Nos. 1 to 5 are represented by the Standing Counsel. In addition to normal mode of service the petitioner is permitted to serve respondent No. 6 personally and outside court within ten days. Respondents may file counter affidavit in one month. List for admission after the expiry of six weeks. Meanwhile respondent No. 7 is restrained from making any appoint ment to the post of Principal in the institution concerned. " 4. In spite of the above said order passed by this Court the Manager of the College vide his order dated 9-11-1994 directed him to hand over charge of the post of officiating Principal to Sri Balram Prasad Chaturvedi, the senior most teacher, till 30-6-1995 or till regular Principal is appointed. Since the said Balram Prasad Chaturvedi declined to accept the appointment of officiat ing Principal, the Manager vide his order dated 10-11-1994 directed the petitioner to hand over charge to the second senior most teacher Sri Had Narain Chaturvedi, when the Manager approached the District Inspector of Schools for attestation of signature or respondent No. 3 as officiating Principal, he (District Inspector of Schools) vide his order dated 19-11-1994 defined to attest the same on the ground that in writ petition No. 37361 of 1993 vide order dated 8-10-1993 passed by the High Court, the petitioner was entitled to continue as officiating Principal till 30-6-1995, i. e. upto the end of the academic year on the above pleadings the petitioner lias tiled another writ peti tion bearing No. 38274 of 1994 arraying District Inspector of Schools, Basil, Committee of Management of the College and Hari Narain Chaturvedi as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. In this petition he has sought the follow ing reliefs :- (i) that orders dated 9-11-1994 and 10-11-1994 passed by respondent No. 2 may be quashed ; (ii) that the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as officiating Principal till 30-6-1995 ; and (iii) that the respondents No. 2 may be commanded to comply with the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Basti dated 19-11-1994. " 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in both the writ petitions. THE case of the respondents in a nutshell is that the provisions of 1980 Act were not applicable to the college and further that the petitioner having retired on 5-11-1994 on attaining the age of superan nuation, was re-employed as a teacher in view of the provisions of Statute 16. 24 (3) (Proviso) as contained in Part III of Chapter XVI of the First Statutes of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi framed under Section 50 of the 1973 Act and, hence he ceased to be officiating Principal of College on 5-11-1994 (the date of his superannuation) and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Statute 12,22 of the First Statute of the University, the post of Principal of the College having fallen vacant, the senior most teacher of the College became entitled to act as Principal until a duly selected Princi pal assumed the office. In strict compliance of the said provision the Manager of the College had directed Sri Balram Prasad Chaturvedi, the senior most teacher of the College to take over charge of the office of the officiating Princi pal from the petitioner and on his having declined to accept the appointment, the next senior most teacher, namely, Sri Hari Narain Chaturvedi was so directed vide order dated 10-11-1994. 6. Since both the petitions involve similar question.- of law and fact, it is proposed to dispose them of by this common judgment. 7. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. THE fate of these petitions upon the decision of the question as to whether even after his having superannuated and re-employed under Statute 16. 24 (3) (Proviso) of the First Statute of the University the petitioner was entitled to continue as a Principal till 30-6-1995 ? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards the ratio laid down in Proof K. N. Tewari v. Allahabad University, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 563 (DB) and has urged that the petitioner after the date of his supe rannuation having been re-employed was entitled to continue as officiating Principal till the appointment of a regular incumbent by the appropriate autho rity. In reply the learned counsel for the respondents has cited at the Bar following judgments : (i) Dr. O. P. Tandon v. State of U. P. , 1984 (2) UPLBEC 362 ; (ii) Ramesh Chandra Vyas v. University of Lucknow, 1989 (2) UPLBEC 58. He has argued that the petitioner could not claim the post of officiating Principal as he had been re-employed upto 30-6- 1995 as a teacher and not as officiating Principal after the date of his superannuation. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the arguments advanced by the teamed counsel for the petitioner, rather the submissions made on behalf of the respondents have force. 9. THE word "teacher of the University" has been defined in sub-clause (19) of Section 2 of the U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter called as the the 'act') which reads as under : " (19) "teacher of the University" means a teacher employed by the University for imparting instructions and guiding or conducting research either in the University or in an institute or in constituent college maintained by the University. " THE word "teacher" has been defined in Section 2 (18) of the Act which reads as under: " ('8) "teacher" means a person employed for imparting instructions or guiding or conducting research in the University or in an institute or in a constitute, affiliated or associated college and includes a Principal or Director. " 10. Chapter VI of the Act deals with appointment and conditions of service of teachers and officers. It is comprised of Sections 31 to 36. Sec tion 31 deals with appointment of teachers. Personal promotion to teachers of University has been taken care of under Section 31-A. Provision for con tract of appointment of teachers of the University has been made under Sec tion 32. Pension, provident fund etc. are dealt with under Section 33. Limits of additional remunerative work as permissible to teachers have been provided under Section 34. Conditions of service of teachers of affiliated or associated colleges other than those maintained by the Government or local authorities have been laid down under Section 35. THEre is a provision of Tribunal of arbitration under Section 36 of the Act. 11. Section 31 (1) of the Act provides for the mode of appointment of the teachers of the University and as also of teachers of an affiliated or asso ciated college. According to this sub-section the appointment of a teacher in an affiliated or associated college is made by the management of the said college on the recommendation of the Selection Committee in the manner pro vided in the proceeding sub-sections of Section 31 (3 ). 12. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (President Act No. 10 of 1973), as re-enacted and amended by the U. P. Universities (Re- enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, (U. P. Act Ns. 29 of 1974), the Governor made the 1st Statutes of the Universities of Allahabad, Lucknow, Agra, Gorakhpur, Kanpur, Meerut, Kumaon, Garhwal, Awadh, Rohilkhand Kashi Vidyapith and Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi dealing with age of superannuation, scales of pay and qualifications of teachers. THE first amendment in the said Statutes was made vide Notification No. 7251/xv-10-75-60 (115)-73 published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 20-10-1975, thereby substituting new-statutes for statutes 8, 9 and 10. 13. THE second amendment to the first statutes was made vide Notifica tion No. 1791-XV-10-77 published in the U. P. Extraordinary Gazette dated 15-4-1977 thereby amending Statutes 2, 3, 8 and 10. THE amendment of statute 3 is relevant herein and, therefore, it is expedient to examine the pro visions of this Statute prior to and after the amendment. Original Statute No. 3 After amendment 3 (1) Subject to the provisions of Statute 3. In Statute 3 of the said statutes, 4, 5, 6 and 7 the age of superannuation after clause (3), the following of a teacher go verned by the new scale proviso shall be inserted, namely- of pay shall be 60 years. (2) THE age of superannuation of teachers 'provided that if the date of not governed by the new Scales of pay superannuation of a teacher does shall, subject to statute 7, be sixty years. not fall on June 30, the teacher shall continue in service till (3) No extension of service beyond the the end of the academic session i. e age of superannuation shall be June 30 following and he will granted to any teacher after the date be treated as on re-employment of commencement of. these Statutes. from the date immediately fol lowing the date of his superan nuation till June 30 following. ' 14. Clause 3 was added to Statute 16. 24 of the 1st Statute of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi in 1978 which came force on December 26, 1978. 15. From the above history of enactment of clause 3 of Statute 16,24, it is evident that originally there was nu provision of re-employment of a teacher in the U. P. State Universities First Statutes, 1975 and it was through second amendment that the re-employment of a teacher was made in Statute 16. 24 of the First Statutes. Thus a teacher on attaining the age of superannuation gets re-employment because of the provisions of clause 3 of Statute 16. 24 of the First Statutes of the University and the University has no say in the matter of re-employment and has no choice even. It is thus abundantly clear that clause 3 of Statute 16. 24 of the First Statutes has been framed in order to safeguard the academic interest of the students. THE idea behind this provi sion is that if a teacher who retires during the academic session is allowed to go and in his place another teacher is appointed to teach that very subject to the students of the class, the continuity of teaching will break which is likely to adversely affect the academic career of students. THErefore, this provision safeguards the interest of students and has not been framed for the benefit of teachers. THE use of word "teacher" in the second line of the proviso to sub-clause (3) again clearly shows that it talks of "teacher" who teaches a subject in the class and not the Principal who looks after the administration of the College. 16. It is well-settled now that the Legislature does not use any word redundantly or without any reason. Each word in a piece of legislation has a meaning. THErefore, the word "teacher" used in this sub-clause has reference only to a teacher who teaches a subject to a class. 17. Again, towards the end of this provision it has been mentioned that such a teacher will be treated as on re-employment from the date imme diately following the date of his superannuation. Here the word "he" refers to the word "teacher" and not to the Principal who does not teach a subject to a class. So if a person performs both the functions, i. e. if the Principal also teaches a subject in the class, this provision will certainly have reference to his function of teaching the class and not his distractive functions as Principal. 18. THE fasts involved in Prof. K. N. Tiwari's case (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are altogether diffe rent. THEre the petitioner was a Professor. Immediately after the date of his superannuation he got re-employed on the post of professor and performed the same functions which he was performing on the date of his superannuation and under the peculiar circumstances of that particular case a Division Bench of this Court had held that by no stretch of imagination it could be said that he was not a teacher of the University as defined under the State Universities Act. THErefore, there can possibly be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down therein. But the ratio of that case cannot be grafted on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Herein the petitioner on the date of his superannuation was a teacher and in addition thereto he was looking after the work of Principal as officiating Principal THErefore, immediately, after the date of his superannuation he was re-employed as a teacher under the provisions of clause 3 of Statute 16. 24 of the Statute and not as Principal. He could not, therefore, forestal the appointment of a regular Principal. 19. In Dr. O. P. Tandon's case (supra), the petitioner who was Head of Department, attained the age of superannuation in mid session, but was allowed to continue till the end of following June in accordance with Statute 16. 24 (3) of the First Statutes of the Luckhow University which was analogous to Statute 16. 24 (3) of the First Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. A question arose as to whether he will be senior vis-a-vis the next senior most professor of the department. It was hold by a Division Bench of this Court that re-employment being different from ex tension the petitioner cannot add to his new service which started on his re-employment, his earlier service prior to his superannuation and, therefore, on his superannuation followed by re-employment the next professor senior most to him should be treated as senior. It was further held that the expression "continue in service" occurring in the proviso to Statute 16. 24 (3) had to be interpreted in the light of legal fiction which has been provided in the same proviso and in the same sentence. That legal action is to the effect that a teacher so allowed to continue in service has to be treated as on re-employment and his re- employment is to commence on the date immediately following the date of his superannuation. THE expression "continue in service" cannot, therefore, be decisive of the question as it cannot be interpreted as if the legal fiction did not exist. 20. In Ram Chandra Vyas's case, (supra), where also the provisions of Statute 16. 24 (3) of the First Statutes of the Luckhow University were inter preted, it was held that re-appointment of a University teacher after the age of superannuation made in view of Statute 16. 24 (6) has to be treated as tem porary employment and such a teacher was not entitled to hold any office or authority of University for which he could be entitled prior to his re-appointment. 21. THE net result of the discussion is that it is to be held that the petitioner who immediately after the date of his superannuation gets re-employment under Statute 16. 24 (3) of the First Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University as a teacher ceased to be an officiating Principal of the Col lege with effect from 5. 11. 1994, the date of his superannuation. In view of the provisions of Statute 12. 22 of the First Statutes of the University, the post of Principal of the College having fallen vacant, the senior most teacher of the college became entitled to act as Principal until a duly selected Principal assumes the office. 22. Now on to the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to get pay in the grade of Principal, i. e. Rs. 2,000-4,000 with effect from 1-7-1991 till the date of his superannuation. Annexure 1 to writ petition No, 37361 of 1983 when translated into English would read somewhat as under : "certified that on account of attaining the age of superannuation on 60 years, Sri Shiva Kant Misra has retired from the post of Prin cipal. THErefore, the senior professor and head of department Sri Paras Nath Pandey has been delivered charge of the office of Prin cipal with effect from 30-6-1991. From today he will be entitled to carry out all the functions of Principal " 23. THE petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 5-11-1994 and in addition to his teaching work he has also been performing the functions of Principal and, therefore, he was certainly entitled to get the pay in the scale of Principal in view of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" and that relief has to be granted to him. It is, therefore, directed that the difference of pay for the period with effect from 30-5-1991 after noon to 5-11-1994 b; paid to him within a period of six months from the date a certified copy 01 this order is furnished. 24 In view of what has been stated above, except the relief of diffe rence of pay as mentioned above, both these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. THE interim stay dated 8-10-1993 passed in writ petition No. 37361 of 1993 is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed. .;