- (1.) M. Katju, J. This petition has been filed for a writ of ceniorari for quashing the notification dt. 3-8-1996 issued by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ peti tion and for a mandamus directing the res pondent No. 4 not to interfere in the functi oning of the petitioner as Principal of Janta Inter College, Birhuni, district Etawah.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Stand ing counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 and also learned counsel for respondent No. 7. The petitioner was appointed as As sistant Teacher and later on promoted as permanent lecturer in the institution in 1974. The permanent Principal Sri Gopi Nath Pandey retired on 30-6-1989 and the petitioner was appointed on 1-7-1989 as ad hoc Principal by the Manager vide An-nexure-1 to the writ- petition. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioner assumed charge of the office of the Principal on 1-7-1989 and since then has been working as such. His signature has been attested by the D. I. O. S. vide An-nexure-2. The Committee of Management also passed a resolution dated 14-6-1992 vide Annexure-3 to the petition resolving to accord ad hoc appointment to the petitioner as Principal of the Institution from 1-7-1989 and the D. I. O. S. has granted approval to this resolution on 1-10-1992 vide An-nexure-4. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for regularisation under Section 33-A of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982 as amended in 1991. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 7 Sri M. K. Gupta who claims to be the person selected by the Com mission. In paragraph 8 of the same, it is alleged that there is a difference between the Acting or Officiating Principaland ad hoc Principal. In my opinion, mere is no difference between Acting or Officiating Principal and ad hoc Principal. Once the permanent Principal retires, then the senior most teacher is ordinarily entitled to be ap pointed as ad hoc Principal, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Manage ment 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551. I am further of the opinion that the petitioner was en titled for regularisation u/s. 33-A in view of the 1991 amendment to the Act which came into force on 6-4-1991 Vide Smt. Santosh Jain v. U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 129].
(3.) HENCE I hold that the petitioner has been regularised under Section 33-A as Principal of the Institution. The petition is alloweo. The impugned notification dated 3-8-1996 is quashed. The respondents are restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as Principal of the institution in question. Petition allowed. .;