- (1.) Heard.
(2.) The petitioner herein had earlier approached this court by means of writ petition no.9473(SS) of 2016 seeking a writ of mandamus for being allowed to officiate as Principal in the respondent-Intermediate College in view of the provision contained in Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1982'). The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 3.5.2016. For the reasons mentioned therein following arrangement was made under the orders of this court: "In view of the above it is ordered as under:- a) Let the committee of management look into the matter and notify the vacancy, if any, on the post of Principal immediately, if, there is no other legal impediment. b) If there is a substantive vacancy as claimed let the committee of management appoint the senior most teacher as officiating Principal of the institution in the meantime, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. c) From the date of notification of vacancy as aforesaid after a lapse of a period of two months, officiating appointment as aforesaid shall be treated as ad-hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act, 1982. The consequences shall follow as per law. The aforesaid arrangement has been made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which have arisen and the fact that the institution can not remain without a Principal. Needless to say that if the committee of management does not act upon the orders of this Court, then the District Inspector of School shall do the same. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the merits of the claim of the petitioner that he is the senior most lecturer and if there is any dispute pending in this regard before any court or authority and any order adverse to the petitioner is operating then the same shall be taken into consideration. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
(3.) It appears that prior to passing of the said judgment on 3.5.2016 the Committee of Management which comprised of the District Magistrate and S.D.M. etc. had already taken a decision on 13.4.2016 for the appointment of opposite party no.8 as officiating Principal, although the petitioner herein claims that this resolution has been prepared subsequently. The opposite party no.8 is placed at serial no.4 in the seniority list of Lecturer Grade; the petitioner is placed at serial no.1. There is no dispute in this regard that the persons at serial nos.2 and 3 namely Sandhya Srivastava and Ram Vilas have not come forward to challenge the decision impugned herein.;