- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 1st July, 1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj attesting the sig nature of respondent No. 3 as officiating Principal in Rashtriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, district Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as the institution ).
(2.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare ap pearing on behalf of Committee of Management and Sri Ashok Mehta for respondent No. 3. Sri Ashok Mehta has filed affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3. It is agreed between the learned Counsel for the par ties that the writ petition be disposed of finally. It is not disputed that Sri Brinda Prasad Upadhyaya is a senior lecturer than Anirudh Singh, petitioner No. 2. The post of Principal has fallen vacant. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act reads as under:- "2. (1) the post of the Head of Institution shall except as provided in Clause (2) be filled by direct recruitment after reference to the Selec tion Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 16- F or, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) of Section 16-FF: Provided that in the case of any institution not being an institution referred to in Section 16-FF a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not ex ceeding six months or by death, retirement or suspension of an incumbent occurring during an educational session in the post of the Head of Institution shall be filled by the promotion of the senior most qualified teacher, if any in the highest grade in the institution. "
(3.) PROVISO to the said regulation provides that the post shall be filled by the promotion of the senior most qualified teacher, if any in the highest grade in the institution. This proviso has been con sidered in Rudha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551. Paras 45 and 46 of the judgment lays down guidelines for making ad hoc appointment to the post of principal. The court has held that a Prin cipal is not only required to teach the stu dents but in fact he has to run the institu tion. He is captain of the team. A Principal is entrusted with enormous administrative responsibilities and for that, only a person who is fit to discharge such function, deserves to be appointed. In para 46 guidelines have been laid down to exclude any arbitrariness on behalf of Committee of Management. The Committee of Management passed resolution on 22-6-1997 indicating that petitioner No. 2 is fit to be appointed as Principal. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, contended that there is no adverse entry or any other cogent reason to exclude respondent No. 3 from functioning as Principal. He has enormous administrative capacity. The District Inspector of Schools has not ap plied its mind on this aspect. He has simply directed to attest the signatures of Respondent No. 3 on the basis that he is senior most teacher.;