R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) In view of the retirement of the regular Principal of Baba Raghavdas Bhagwandas Post-Graduate College, Ashram Barhaj, district Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the college) on 30.6.1991, the Committee of Management of the college appointed the petitioner, who is a lecturer in the college, as officiating Principal with effect from 1.7.1991. Although the petitioner was appointed as officiating Principal but he was not paid the salary of the Principal. He, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 27497 of 1993 before this Court, which was disposed of on 15.3.1993, giving liberty to him to make representation to the Director, U. P. Higher Education in that connection. The petitioner claims to have made a representation before the Director ; but no order appears to have been passed for payment of salary of the post of Principal. He also made a representation before the Chancellor of the University, praying for regularisation of his service as Principal of the college. This representation, according to the petitioner, has not been disposed of. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition, seeking writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise his service on the post of Principal of the college in terms of the Government Orders dated 1.10.1994 and 14.11.1996, whereby the service of Km. Madhu Bhatnagar, the Principal of another college, was regularised. Appropriate prayer for payment of salary of the post of Principal has also been made.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition lacks merit and has got to be dismissed for the reasons given hereunder. Earlier the appointments of teachers and Principals in affiliated Degree and Post-Graduate Colleges used to be made by the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Universities Act). In 1980 the State of U. P. enacted the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), providing for appointment of teachers and the Principal in the affiliated colleges by the management of colleges on the recommendation of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). Subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Act, which is reproduced below, has prohibited any other mode of appointment of teachers and Principal in the colleges : "12. Procedure for appointment of teachers.--(1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void." The Act had also provided for ad hoc appointment of teachers under Section 16 and Removal of Difficulties Orders, issued under Section 31A of the Act. Section 16 has now been repealed by U. P. Act No. 2 of 1992 and Removal of Difficulties Orders, issued in 1982 and 1983 have expired in 1983 and 1984 respectively, because the life of each of those orders was one year only. As the managements of the colleges have made large number of ad hoc appointments under Section 16 and the Removal of Difficulties Orders, promulgated under Section 31A of the Act, the State Legislature amended the Act by adding Sections 31B and 31C, providing for regularisation of service of ad hoc teachers other than Principal in the affiliated colleges. Section 31B provides for regularisation of service of ad hoc teachers appointed on or before January 3, 1984 against substantive vacancy in accordance with the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties Order). 1982 or the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties Order), 1983. Section 31C contains the provisions for regularisation of service of ad hoc teachers other than a Principal appointed after January 3, 1984, but not later than June 30, 1991 in an affiliated college.
(3.) As Sections 31B and 31C have provided for regularisation of service of ad hoc teachers only and have expressly excluded the Principal from the benefit of regularisation, the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation of his service as a Principal. A Division Bench of this Court in Indra Pal Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1995 (1) UPLBEC 54, after considering the relevant statutory provisions and the case law, has held that the ad hoc Principal is not entitled to regularisation of service as both Sections 31B and 31C have expressly excluded the Principal from the benefit of regularisation. This Court also upheld the validity of Section 31C.;