D. K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner being the senior most teacher of the institution on the retirement of erstwhile principal has been officiating in the principal's grade pursuant to the appropriate order for the period between 1- 7-1977 to 30-11-1981. The petitioner was paid salary at the rate which he was receiving as a teacher but not at the rate payable to the Principal or the Head of institution. By a letter dated 27-12-1987 (Annexure-2) the Committee of Management addressed the District In spector of Schools, Jaunpur recommend ing payment of salary to the petitioner at the rate and scale of the Principal. But by an order dated 29-12-1987 the District In spector of Schools, Jaunpur rejected the said claim on the ground that on account of his officiation in the post of Principal for the period 1-7-1977 till 30-11-1981 is not payable. It is this order which has been challenged in this writ petition. 2, Admittedly the Committee of Management the respondent No. 2 has not been served. But from the letter contained in (Annexure-2), it appears that the Com mittee has supported the cause of the petitioner. At the same time the Commit tee cannot have any real grievance if the petitioner is entitled to said pay in law and the same is accorded by the appropriate authority. Since a long time has passed since 1988, when the writ petition has been moved it is no more desirable to keep the writ petition pending on the technical ground on non-serving the respondent No. 2 committee of Management who ap pears to support the petition. In that view the service upon the respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 3. Admittedly in case of a vacancy in the post of head of institution is to be filled up in terms of Regulations 2, Chapter II, for the period of six months despite the petitioner's officiation for over four years no regular principal has been appointed. It is also the case of the petitioner that no regularly selected principal had ever joined the post till 30-11-81. Clause (3) of Regulation 2 of Chapter II provides that in cases where the temporary vacancy in the post of Head of the institution officiating for a period of not exceeding thirty days the incumbent shall not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than the post he held substantively. The interpretation of the said regulation as to whether the period exceeds one month the incumbent is en titled to the scale of Principal came into consideration in the case of Narbdeshwar Misra v. The District Inspector of Schools Deoria, 1982 UPLBEC 171. While inter preting the said provisions their Lordship of the Division Bench was pleased to hold that in case a period exceeding one month, the incumbent is entitled to the scale of Principal. Mr. Ashok Bhushan learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said decision still holds good and has not been over-ruled or any contrary view has been expressed in any other judgment. 4. A plain reading of sub-clause (3) clearly indicates that salary at the scale of Principal shall not be payable when an officiation is for a period not exceeding one month which pre-supposes when it exceeds thirty days the scale is payable. The legislation if had intended to convey the meaning while enacting the said provisions that the incumbent shall not be entitled to the scale of Principal in that event it would not have engrafted the limitation of the period not exceeding thirty days. The legislation never waste words. A consistent meaning has to be given to each of the expression used in the statute. A proper interpretation of the said provisions indicates that in case the officiation exceeds thirty days in that event the incumbent would be entitled to the scale of Principal. Because he had of ficiated for over six months though a period was incorporated in the proviso 'for a period not exceeding six months' does not mean to preclude that an officiation beyond six months as head of the institu tion would not entitled the incumbent to the scale of Principal. Until regularly selected principal joins if a person is al lowed to continue the officiation for a period exceeding six months the scale of the Principal cannot be denied to him. Then again the period of six months referred to in the proviso qualifies the vacancy on account of leave. But so far as the ground of death, retirement or suspen sion is concerned is qualified by the ex pression 'occurring during an educational session'. The six months limitation cannot be imported in such case. 5. In that view of the matter the order contained in Annexure-3 cannot be sus tained and as such is here by quashed and accordingly a writ of certiorari do issue. 6. The District Inspector of Schools is here by directed to reconsider the question having regard to the facts as to the date between which the petitioner had of ficiated and such officiation if ceased either on account of joining of regularly selected candidate as principal or on ac count of petitioner's retirement or other wise cessation of officiation as principal. Such exercise is to be completed with in a period of two months from the date a cer tified copy of this order is produced before the District Inspector of Schools who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above provided the petitioner is found eligible upon scrutiny of the records, after giving the Committee of Management an opportunity of hearing and produce the relevant records by giving sufficient notice. Accordingly the writ of mandamus do issue. The writ petition is thus finally disposed of. There will, how ever, no order as to costs. 7. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. Petition finally disposed of. .;