R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the petitioner, who is B.Sc. with post-Graduate diploma in Chemistry organised by Department of Education of University of Allahabad, was qualified for being promoted as ad-hoc principal.
(2.) Vacancy of an ad-hoc principal arose in R.P.S. Inter College, Rura, Kanpur Dehat in 1987 and as persons senior to petitioner were not willing to work as ad-hoc Principal for one or the other reason and had expressed their inability by written communication sent to committee of management, it passed a resolution in September 1987 appointing ad-hoc Principal of the College under Section 18 of the Act No. 5 of 1982. Appointment appears to have been approved by Inspector of Schools subject to condition that petitioner was to continue till regular principal was appointed by Commission or any direction was received from Deputy Director of Education. In September 1988 Deputy Director of Education informed the Inspector of Schools by that petitioner did not possess requisite qualifications for appointment as principal, intimation of which was sent by District Inspector of Schools to committee of management, in consequences of which it withdrew approval granted to petitioners appointment in October 1988.
(3.) From Annexure-1, an extract of regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 laying down qualifications for principal of Intermediate College it appears one of the qualifications is trained post-Graduate diploma holder in Science. That is the only category in which the petitioner can claim himself to be eligible as admittedly he is not a post-Graduate and not covered in any of the categories, mentioned in clauses 1 and II of the Regulations. raining appears to be one of the necessary qualifications to be appointed as Principal except where one has experience of ten years teaching in Intermediate College. Since petitioner is only a diploma-holder in Science he was well qualified to be appointed as Lecturer, but in absence of training he could not have been promoted or appointed as ad-hoc principal, the requirement of training cannot be construed as surplus age for diploma-holder. It appears to be a mandatory requirement. The argument that the essential requirement of training being missing for a diploma-holder for post of lecturer it should be assumed that qualification provided for post of principal in case of diploma-holder is to be read in such a manner that mere post-Graduate trained should be deemed sufficient to be devoid of any substance. For lecturer requirement of training is not mandatory if he is post-Graduate or B.Sc. with honour but in case of mere B.Sc. he could not be appointed unless he held a post graduate diploma. This requirement in fact demonstrates that a mere B.Sc. has been placed at lower footing than B.Sc. with honour and post graduate. In any case the requirement of training being clearly mentioned and petitioner admittedly being untrained could not claim to be appointed as Principal. Therefore, the opposite parties did not commit any error of law in rejecting the claim of petitioner.;