- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Pathak for respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE dispute in this case is as to who is entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Prin cipal in the Institution in question. Ac cording to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, (1994) 3 UPLBEC1551, or dinarily the senior most teacher in the Institution in question and hence accord ing to Radha Raizada's case the respon dent No. 2 is not entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Principal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied on a decision of this Court in Satya Vir Singh v. DIOS Bulandshahar, 1995 (1) AWC 122 and he has emphasised on paragraphs 11 and 12 of this decision in which it has been held that once the senior most teacher has declined to accept the post he cannot claim the right to function as officiating Principal. In my opinion this decision is distinquishable. In the present case the respondent No. 2 had declined to accept the post of Principal in the year 1981. Satya Vir Singh's case cannot be in terpreted to mean that once a person has declined to officiate as ad hoc Principal and later on the vacancy again occurs he cannot then claim to be the officiating Principal merely because he had earlier declined. In my opinion, declining of the post is only for that particular period of time when the vacancy had arisen. It can not be treated to amount to permanently declining the post for all times to come. Whenever the vacancy may again occur in future the senior most teacher may again be considered for the post of Principal according to law. In the circumstances, there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dis missed. Petition dismissed. .;