DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) THE controversy relates to officiate ad-hoc Principal in the College namely, Mahatma Budh Inter College, Budh Nagar, Adda Bazar, Maharajganj after retirement of a regular incumbent. While deciding the controversy relating to right to officiate as Principal of the Institution in question the Joint Director held that since the petitioner does not qualify by possessing requisite qualification, he cannot officiate as Principal of the Institution. Feeling aggrieve, the present writ petition has been filed. An interim order dated 24.7.2007 was passed by this Court.
(2.) SRI B. D. Pandey appears for the respondent No. 6. He relied on the judgment reported in (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2181, Shamshul Zama v. District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli and others, and the judgment and order dated 9.10.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49588 of 2007, Sri Nivas Dubey v. State of U.P. and others, and proceeded to submit that the petitioner is not qualified to discharge duty as Officiating or ad-hoc Principal of the Institution even if he is senior to the respondent. It has been submitted that the petitioner does not fulfil the minimum qualification. Admittedly, the petitioner is B.A. and B.Ed. and the minimum qualification provided by the Institution for the post of Principal is Post Graduation. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the controversy relating to ad-hoc Principal in the case of Shamshul Zama (supra) observed that only those candidates should be promoted who possess the minimum qualification. Hon'ble the Single Judge while deciding other writ petition of Sri Niwas Pandey (supra) also derived the same conclusion. It has been observed by the Division Bench that something the ad-hoc Principal continues for years even up to the age of superannuation. Hence it is necessary that only a qualified person is appointed as an ad-hoc Principal. The relevant portion of the judgment of Shamshul Zama (supra), is reproduced as under: "9. Section 16-E (3) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 clearly provides that no person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or Teacher in an Institution unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations. U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 and especially Section 16 thereof only provide for manner and method of selection of a teacher and it has neither any bearing nor it effects or curtains the operation of sub-section (3) of Section 16-E of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It, therefore, follows as a corollary that in absence of minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations a person cannot be appointed as Head of Institution or a Teacher. 11. It will not be out of place to look to another angle of the problem. The dictionary meaning of the word "Principal" as given in Webstor's Third New International Dictionary is as under: (i) A person who has controlling authority or is in a position to Act independently; (ii) One who has a leading position or takes the lead as a Chief or Head Master; (iii) The Chief Executive Officer of various educational institutions; (iv) One presiding as Rule, leader, superior or Lord. In Chambers dictionary, the meaning has been given as under: (i) Taking the first place, highest in rank, character or imporances; (ii) A Principal person or thing; (iii) A head, as of a school or college; (iv) One who takes a leading part. There can be no doubt that a Principal of a college has a leading position and is superior to all other members of the staff, being the Chief Executive Officer of the Educational Institution. All other teachers look for guidance to him. He has to motivate the students to devote to their studies and to build their character. He should be able to influence the other teachers and students of the Institution by his knowledge, wisdom and character. It will look incongruous that an Institution should be headed by a person who does not possess even the prescribed minimum qualification and his qualification is inferior to those who are working under him. Such a person can never command the respect of other teachers and the students in the Institution. In fact these days it will be difficult to find a person working even in trained graduate scale who may not be holding a post-graduate degree. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Legislature has deliberately omitted the words "possessing prescribed qualifications" in sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act it is only a stop-gap arrangement for a short period. In our opinion, the contention raised has no substance as it omits to take into consideration the effect of allied enactments and the Rules which have a bearing on the subject. The apart, it is a fallacy to think that an ad-hoc appointment is only for a brief period. A huge bulk of litigation coming to this Court and our experience shows that an ad-hoc appointment of a Principal of an Institution continues for years. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board is overworked and it takes years before a vacancy is advertised. The interviews are then held years after a lapse of a long period after the vacancy had been notified. The ad-hoc Principal and quite often the Committee of Management of the Institutions are too keen to see that the selection for a regulate Principal is not made and any number of writ petitions are filed in this Court towards that end. Even after a person has been selected, effort is made that he may not be able to join the Institution by creating all sorts of obstacles. The ad-hoc Principal is thus able to continue for years and more often than not he attains the age of superannution while working as ad-hoc Principal. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that only a qualified person is appointed, as an ad-hoc Principal. 13. So far as the qualification of the appellant is concerned, it is not in dispute that he doesn't possess a post-graduate degree. He is a post-graduate diploma holder in Science but not a "trained" one as this word "trained" as already shown above, has a special meaning in Appendix A. Therefore, the appellant does not possess essential qualification for the post of Head of Institution and consequently he has no claim to be appointed as an ad-hoc Principal. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the D.I.O.S. in asking the Committee of Management to appoint respondent No. 4 as ad-hoc Principal of the Institution." In view of the above settled proposition of law, the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court.
(3.) THE writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.;