R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is a Head Master of a Junior High School is entitled to be promoted as Head Master of High School if the institution is upgraded as a matter of right if he is otherwise qualified. Allied to it is another question, namely if process for selection of the Head of the institution has started, did it cease or come to an end on enactment of U. P. Act 5 of 1982.
(2.) FACTS are not in dispute. The petitioner had been working as Head Master of Junior High School since 1959. The institution was upgraded in November, 1977. Since the petitioner was qualified, he started working as Head Master of High School. In February, 1981 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Head Master of High School. In March, it is claimed that papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for holding selection. But before any selection could be held by a selection committee, constituted under U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder, U. P. Act 5 of 1982 was enacted providing for appointment to the post of Head Master through Secondary Education Service Commission, constituted under the Act. From affidavit filed by one Sheo Narain Singh, who has filed application for impleadment, it is clear that selection for the post of Principal of the High School was held by Commission, in which petitioner and senior most teacher of the college also appeared, but the commission selected Sheo Narain Singh. Since petitioner claims that the Commission should not have held the selection under Act 5 of 1982, the appropriate time for petitioner to approach this Court was when selections were going to be held. It is unfair to take chance of being selected and having failed then to approach this court for quashing the selection as the Commission had no jurisdiction. The decision, however, need not rest on it as the submission of the petitioner that he was entitled to be appointed as a matter of right or that the selection process having started, the Commission could not held the selection is devoid of any substance. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act deals with manner and method of promotion of Principal of High School, if the institution is upgraded as Intermediate. Its various sub clauses indicate that the promotion is as a matter of right provided other conditions are satisfied. Not only that, if the District Inspector of Schools does not accord his approval or disapproval within three weeks, then it provides for deemed approval. There is no such provision in respect of Head Master of Junior High School. On the other hand, clause (g) provides only this much safeguard that in case a Head Master of Junior High School is not selected as Head Master of High School then he shall be reverted as Assistant teacher. Two things clearly emerge from it. One it is well established principle of interpretation that if in the same section or rule, similar situation in two different parts is dealt differently, then it has to be assumed that the legislature or the rule making authority deliberately did not provide for it to be dealt similarly. And what is clear and explicit cannot be held to be otherwise by implication. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by analogy the provisions of promotion applicable to Principal of High School on its upgradation as Intermediate shall apply to Junior High School when it became High School cannot be accepted. It is not permissible to travel beyond the clear language and obvious intention of the rule making authority or stretch its scope by analogy. Other reason is that the use of word 'selected' in clause (g) is not without meaning. That is a Head Master of Junior High School unlike Principal or Head Master of High School has no right of being promoted. He has to face selection. That is why the selection process was started by issuing advertisement. But it was stayed due to issuing of Ordinance no. 8 of 1981, which later on become Act 5 of 1982. Section 16 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder, any appointment of a teacher specified in the Schedule, which includes Head Master of a High School, shall on or after 10th July, 1981 be made by the management only on the recommendation of the commission. It obviously applied to all those selections, appointments and promotions, which had not been completed and finalised till then. The ban was complete. It did not make a distinction between appointment or promotion for which the process had been initiated from those where no steps had been taken as yet. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that selection process having started it should have been complied under U. P. Intermediate Education Act does not appear to be correct. Reliance was placed on 1983 AWC 368, A. A. Coltron v. Director of Education, and it was argued that the substantive right of selection under section 16-F of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act could not be taken away by Act 5 of 1982. The submission proceeds on misapprehension of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision. Therein, it was held that U. P. Act 26 of 1975 did not expressly or impliedly provide that the amendment act issued apply to pending proceedings. Unlike that, Act 5 of 1982 specifically provides that no appointment or promotion shall be made after the date of enforcement except in accordance with provisions of the Act. In the result, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed but no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;