- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This order will dispose of two Writ Petitions No. 19557of 19% and 20651 of 1966 and they pertain with respect to the controversy of same subject-matter i. e. non- interference in the working of duty as a Principal of the D. V. Post Graduate College, Jalaun and stoppage of salary from March, 1996 to May, 1996. These two writ petitions have raised a very interesting question and would show how management of U. P. Educational Institu tions and how the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission is fur "zoning and how the system with respect 01 regular recruit ment of the Principal has failed for want of indifferences and listless attitude of the management and the authorities who con trol the functioning of the colleges. This question also involves the interpretation of Statute 12. 20. Statute 12. 20 is quoted below for advantage: "12. 20.-When the office of the principal of an affiliated college falls vacant, the Management may appoint any teacher to officiate as Principal for a period of three months or until the appoint ment of a regular principal, whichever is earlier. If on or before the expiry of the period of three months, any regular principal is not appointed, or such a Principal does not assume office, the senior most teacher in the college shall officiate as Principal of such college until a regular principal is appointed. "
(2.) IN these two writ petitions again the interesting point which arises is that if a senior most teacher including the present claimant who do not want to shoulder the responsibility when there is a trouble in the college and they are unable to control and a junior person offered himself to officiate as Principal and the officiated for four years and then the respondent No. 4 in writ peti tion No. 20651 of 1996 Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, who is now senior most person and previously in disturbed times he resigned and when the peace was restored he offers join and Management Committee gives him posting without regular selection and the present incumbent the petitioner is shunted out. How far it would be legal and justified to give him (Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava) appointment who is a senior most teacher when he ran from the war field like a coward man or like deserted soldier and later on when the peace was restored would it be in all fairness and propriety to give him appointment by the Management without a regular selection who had lacked the courage to handle the situation at that time. Is it a fair procedure and justice to remove an ad hoc officiating Principal after four years without a regular selection and substitute a person like a king who ran away when the Rome was burning and expressed his inability serve the institution in that capacity. Is he not stopped by his act and conduct and what discipline he would teach to the students and how he would control of the affairs. These two writ petitions would per tain to these questions as well as other provisions of the Act. Law is not divorced from realities of life and while interpreting law it should be interpreted taking into con sideration new situation and to mould the relief as sometime Legislature or law makers do not foresee all possibilities/con tingencies. Now coming over to the facts of the case. Resume of facts of Writ Petition No. 19557 of 1995 are as under:
(3.) THE petitioner seeks a writ in the nature temporary quashing the order dated 27-5-1996 (Annexure- No. 9) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order dated 31-5-1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 and praying further that the petitioner be paid salary in the grade or Principal which he has been getting since 23-5-1992 along with ar rears of salary for the months of March, April and May, 1996 and further prayer has been made for regularisation of service of the petitioner as Principal. Annexure No. 9 is a letter from Dis trict Inspector of Schools to the Manage ment Committee that Dr. Govind Singh Niranja's bill would be passed according to the grade of Lecturer only and request was made to send relevant documents. An nexure No. 10 to the writ petition is a letter dated 31-5-19% from the Director, Higher Education, U. P. , Allahabad to the District Inspector of School, Jalaun informing him that officiating Principal has no right to get salary of Principal in the grade of Rs. 4,500 Rs. 7,300 and is only entitled for Lecturer grade and the order for recovery was also issued. Admittedly, he was getting his salary as Principal till the receipt of these two letters. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as officiating principal on 23-5-92 and per procedure his signatures were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools. He further claims that the used to prepare the bill, of teachers and employees in the capacity of the Principal. His name was published as Principal in the college bulletin. He was getting pay scale of Prin cipal till March, 1996. His appointment was approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 9. 11. 1992 on the recommendation of the Management Committee on 29-8-92 as per Annexure No. 5 of connected Writ Petition No. 20651 of 1996. There is no dispute on this fact. Petitioner's submission is that non payment of salary and impugned orders are bad in law and he prays for quashing of the same.;