# Samita v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 988
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19185 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/samita-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54090
- **Pages:** 18

## Text

_Characters 0–39,826 of 54,555. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39826 for what follows._

988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relevant statutory provisions as well as the observations of the Court, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order,
if there is no legal impediment.

41. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 988
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 19185 of 2025
alongwith other cases

Samita ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-fulfilling the pre-condition as provided u/s 18 of the Act of 1982 to the entitlement of the
adhoc Principal to get salary as regular Principal.
(2) Exception to the Rule of Precedent regarding binding effect of judgment rendered by the Division bench
over the bench of Single Judge.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Salary - Adhoc Principal/Headmaster - Promotion of senior most qualifying
teacher to the adhoc vacancy of Principal was made - Salary as the regular Principal was
claimed - Permissibility - Precondition provided u/s 18 of the Act of 1982 was not fulfilled -
Effect - Exception to the Rule of Precedent regarding binding effect of judgment of Division
Bench over the Bench of Single Judge explained. (E-1)
Held : Judgments of year '1980', '1982' and '1985' were decided mainly on basis of a Government Order
dated 18.01.1974, which provides that a teacher officiating the post of Principal is entitled to receive salary of
Principal grade - Court takes note that all these judgments are passed by Division Benches of this Court,
therefore, present Bench being a Single Bench has to follow except it some provisions of law were not
specifically considered - In none of above referred cases, Section 18 of Act of 1982 as inserted in the year
2000 was interpreted or considered since enacted subsequently - Preconditions mentioned in Section 18 of
the Act of 1982 has to be complied with being mandatory and only thereafter, such ad-hoc promotee on the
post of Principal or Head Master would be entitled for salary of said post. [Para 11, 12, 16 and 23]
(B) Precedent - Rules regarding binding effect of judgment of Division Bench over the Bench of
Single Judge - Exception - Applicability. (E-1)
Held : Court takes note that all these judgments are passed by Division Benches of this Court, therefore,
present Bench being a Single Bench has to follow except it some provisions of law were not specifically
considered - The Full Bench in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh has only made a reference of judgments of
1980, 1982 and 1985 and Radha Raizada (supra) but has not taken note of effect of Section 18 of Act of 1982
as it was not an issue for consideration before the Full Bench - The above questions were not answered in
Narbdeshwar Misra and being prior to said amendment, therefore, this Court has a jurisdiction to interpret the
issue in terms of Section 18(2) of Act of 1982. [Para 12, 17 and 21]
1 All. Samita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
989
Case Law Cited
Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan vs. DIOS, Budaun, 1980 UPLBEC 286; Narbdeshwar Misra vs. DIOS Deoria, 1982
UPLBEC 171; Soloman Morar Jha vs. DIOS, Deoria, 1985 UPLBEC 113; Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2014) 4 UPLBEC 2642; Radha Raizada, 1994 (2) ESC 342 ALD (FB). - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Chapter-II; Regulation under Act of 1921 - Clause 2(1) and 2(3) -
Proviso, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 - Section 18; U.P. Secondary Education
Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 - Rule 11(2)(b); U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and U.P. Higher
Education Service Commission Act, 1980.

List of Keywords
Promotion, Temporary vacancy, Preconditions for promotion, Salary, Highest grade in the institution, Senior
most teacher, Jurisdiction to interpret the issue, Legal consequence.

Case Arising From
Claim of entitlement of salary by the adhoc Principal as paid to the regular Principal.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Prabhakar Awasthi, Senior Advocate; Adarsh Shukla; Tanuj Shahi; Prashant
Shukla; Anurag Shukla; Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi; Manish Tiwari and Saurabh Tripathi.
Advs. for the Respondents : Kartikeya Saran, Additional Advocate General; J.N. Maurya, C.S.C.; R.P.
Dubey, A.C.S.C.; Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Saurabh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. The issues for consideration before this Court in present bunch of writ petitions are as
follows :-

(a) In a case where an ad-hoc vacancy of Principal or Head Master, as the case may be, of
an institution is filled by promotion of senior most qualifying teacher in terms of provisions of
Regulations described under Chapter-II of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short "Act of
1921") read with Regulations under Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF of Act of 1921, whether such
ad-hoc Principal or Head Master would be entitled for salary of Principal or Head Master or it
would still be governed by the provisions of Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Service
Selection Board Act, 1982 (for short "Act of 1982") i.e. such ad-hoc Principal or Head Master
would be entitled for salary of regular Principal or Head Master, only after preconditions prescribed
therein are fulfilled.

(b) Whether issue of payment of salary of post of Principal or Head Master, as the case
may be, while working on promotion on Ad-hoc basis is already settled by the judgments passed by
Division Benches of this Court in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan vs. DIOS, Budaun, 1980
UPLBEC 286; Narbdeshwar Misra vs. DIOS Deoria, 1982 UPLBEC 171 and Soloman Morar
Jha vs. DIOS, Deoria, 1985 UPLBEC 113 (for short "judgments of 1980, 1982 and 1985").

(c) Whether aforesaid judgments of 1980, 1982 and 1985 were considered in a Full
Bench judgment of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, (2014) 4
UPLBEC 2642 and despite said Full Bench was in regard to U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 would still govern the facts and
circumstances of present case arisen out of Act of 1921 and regulations made therein and Act of
1982.

2. Arguments of Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Adarsh
Shukla, Tanuj Shahi, Prashant Shukla, Anurag Shukla, Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned
advocates for petitioners in all writ petitions are that issue has already been settled in above
referred three judgments of 1980, 1982 and 1985 and judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Dr.
Jai Prakash Narayan Singh (supra) so much as that even preconditions prescribed in Section 18
of Act of 1982 are not complied with, still if the promotion is made on a temporary vacancy in the
post of Principal or Head Master, such appointee shall be entitled for salary as Principal or Head
Master, as the case may be, from the date he joined at such post in pursuance of said order of
promotion. There is no scope for reconsideration of the issue.

3. Per contra, it is the argument of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by S\Sri J.N. Maurya, learned C.S.C., R.P. Dubey, learned Addl. C.S.C., Dhirendra Pratap
Singh and Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel that judgments of Division Benches were of the year
1980, 1982 and 1985 and Section 18 of Act of 1982 was substituted by enactment of U.P. Act No.
5/2001 (w.e.f. 03.12.2000) i.e. subsequent to said judgments, therefore, this Court can still look,
consider and interpret the effect of said Section 18 of Act of 1982 which has certain preconditions
for promotion of Ad-hoc Principal or Head Master, as the case may be and its effect on payment of
salary of said post.

4. The next argument of learned Additional Advocate General is that Full Bench in Dr. Jai
Prakash Narayan Singh (supra) was considering different statutes i.e. U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973 and Act of 1980, therefore, it is not applicable in facts and circumstances of the present
case as here ad-hoc promotion is governed by different set of Statutes viz. Act of 1921 and Act of
1982.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that in Dr. Jai Prakash
Narayan Singh (supra), a judgment passed in case of Radha Raizada, 1994 (2) ESC 342 ALD
(FB) was referred and was considered only qua to effect of order of Removal of Difficulties and
power of ad-hoc appointment which is not an issue in present case. The judgments of 1980, 1982
and 1985 were only mentioned in the Full Bench judgment but were not considered at detail except
to follow an analogy that issue of payment of salary to ad-hoc Principal under Act of 1921 was
considered and accordingly directed for payment.

6. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners have submitted that even if the preconditions
prescribed in Section 18 of Act of 1982 are mandatory and Committee of Management has failed to
notify the vacancy, it could not have an adverse effect so far as adhoc Principal or Head Master are
concerned since Section 18(2) of Act of 1982 provides that DIOS concerned has a duty to take care
of such defaults.

7. Before considering rival submissions, relevant provisions of Act of 1921 as well as its
Regulations and Act of 1982 are mentioned hereinafter :-
1 All. Samita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
991

"Regulations of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921

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 Selection Committee constituted under subsection (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 exceeding 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.

(2) (a) Where an institution is raised from a High School to an Intermediate College, the
post of Principal of such college shall be filled by promotion of the Headmaster of such High
School if he was duly appointed as Headmaster in substantive capacity in accordance with law for
the time being in force and possesses a good record of service and the minimum qualifications
prescribed in that behalf or has been granted exemption from such qualifications by the Board.

(b) The Committee of Management of such institution shall submit the proposal for
promotion of the Headmaster concerned to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for his
concurrence.

(c) The proposal referred to in sub-clause (b) shall be accompanied by a copy of the
resolution of the Committee of Management approving such Headmaster for promotion, his service
Book and Character Roll and shall contain the following particulars in relation to him, namely"

(i) date of birth,

(ii) examinations passed by him stating the subjects, divisions and year of passing such
examinations.

(d) The Regional Deputy Director of Education shall communicate his decision on such
proposal within two weeks from the date of receipt thereof, failing which the Regional Deputy
Director shall be deemed to have given his concurrence to such proposal.

(e) The decision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education under sub-clause (d) shall
be communicated to the Committee of Management as well as the Headmaster concerned.

(f) Any person aggrieved from the decision of the Regional Deputy Director of
Education, including the Committee of Management may within 10 days from the date of
communication of the order under sub-clause (e) make a representation against it to the Director
whose decision in the matter shall be final.

(g) A Headmaster of a High School who is not found fit for promotion as Principal of the
upgraded Intermediate College or a Headmaster of a Junior High School who on its being raised as
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a High School, is not selected by the Selection Committee for the post of the Headmaster of
upgraded High School, shall be retained as an assistant teacher on the highest post for which he is
qualified, provided that this pay-scale shall not be reduced.

Explanation" Nothing in this sub-clause shall apply to a person who was not permanent
or was not duly appointed in accordance with law on the date on which the institution was raised to
the level of a High School or an Intermediate College, as the case may be.

(3) Where the temporary vacancy in the post of head of institution is, for a period
not exceeding thirty days, the senior-most teacher in the highest grade may be allowed to
work as acting head of institution, but he shall not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than the
scale of pay in which he is drawing salary as such teacher.

(4) In all cases in which promotions are made under this regulation a copy of the
resolution of the Committee of Management together with particulars in the pro forma prescribed
in Appendix 'B' shall be immediately forwarded by the Manager to the Inspector as well as the
Regional Deputy Director of Education."

"U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982

Section 18: Ad hoc Principals or Headmasters

(1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Board, in accordance with
sub-section (1) of Section 10 and the post of the Principal or the Headmaster actually
remained vacant for more than two months, the management shall fill such vacancy on
purely ad hoc basis by promoting the seniormost teacher.

(a) in the lecturer's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Principal.

(b) in the trained graduate's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the
Headmaster.

(2) Where the Management fails to promote the senior most teacher under sub-section (1)
the inspector shall himself issue the order of promotion of such teacher and the teacher concerned
shall be entitled to get his salary as the Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, from the
date he joins such post is pursuance of such order of promotion.

(3) Where the teacher to whom the order of promotion is issued under sub-section (2) is
unable to join the post of the Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, due to any act or
omission on the part of the management, such teacher may submit his joining report to the
Inspector, and shall thereupon be entitled to get his salary as the Principal or the Headmaster, as the
case may be, from the date he submits the said report.
1 All. Samita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
993

(4) Every appointment of an ad hoc Principal or Headmaster under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall cease to have effect from when the candidate recommended by the Board joins the
post."

8. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has placed heavy reliance on judgments of 1980,
1982 and 1985. Said judgments being short judgments are mentioned below in entirety :-

"Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan vs. DIOS, Budaun :- (1980)

The petitioner is a permanent lecturer in Sri Krishna Intermediate College, Budaun, an
aided and recognized institution. On 30-7-72, the petitioner was promoted to officiate as Principal
in the vacancy caused by the suspension of one Sri Hari Om Goel. The Committee of Management
requested the District Inspector of Schools to approve the petitioners officiating promotion. The
Manager of the institution as well as the petitioner made representation to the District Inspector of
Schools that the petitioner be granted pay in the Principals grade as he was officiating on that post.
The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 14-4-77 upheld the petitioners claim and
observed that the petitioner was entitled to Principals grade as he was officiating on that post. The
petitioners salary was fixed at the rate of Rs. 816 per mensem with effect from 1-11-76.

The petitioner thereafter continued to draw his salary in the Principals grade till January,
1978. The Directorate of Education appeared to have advised the District Inspector of Schools not
to allow an officiating Principal to draw his salary in Principals grade. In pursuance of that
direction, the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 31-8-77 informed the petitioner that
he was. not entitled to draw his salary in Principals grade and he was directed to refund the amount
which had already been paid to him. The petitioner made representation to the District Inspector of
Schools but he met which no success. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court under
Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools as
contained in his letter-dated 31-8-77 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents
to permit the petitioner to draw his salary in the Principals grade for the period he continues to
officiate as Principal.

2. The petitioner is a teacher in aided and recognised institution and the liability for the
prejoint his salary is on the State Government under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College
(Payment of Salary of Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971. The salary of a teacher in aided
and recognised institution is regulated by the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act and the order issued by the State Government from time to time Regulation 46 in
Chapter III lays down that employees of an aided and recognised institution shall be given the pay
scale sanctioned by the State Government from time to time. The State Government has prescribed
the scales of pay for teachers. The State Government issues an order on 18th January 1974
accepting the recommendations of the U.P. Pay Commission prescribing scales of pay for teachers.
Paragraph 5(2) of the Government order lays down that a teacher while officiating on the post
carrying higher grade is entitled to officiating salary in the higher grade and it further prescribed
procedure for determining the salary of officiating teacher in the higher grade. A copy of the
Government order was before us by the petitioner. Respondents do not deny the petitioners
averment that the State Government issued orders sanctioning officiating pay to a teacher in the
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
higher grade. The petitioners claim for salary in Principals grade was sanctioned by the District
Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the aforesaid Government order. Respondents have failed to
show any subsequent Government order or rule superseding the direction contained in Government
order dated 24-1-74. The respondents have further failed to place any material before the court
showing that the petitioner was not entitled to the salary in the Principal's grade while officiating on
the post of Principal. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-8-77 is therefore not
sustainable in law.

3. In the result we allow the petition and quash the order of the District Inspector of
Schools and direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the Principals grade for the
period during which he has been officiating as Principal in accordance with the orders contained in
the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 14-4-79. The petitioner is entitled to his cost."

(Note -: The above judgment has not considered any relevant provisions of
applicable Act and passed judgments only on basis of a GO dated 24.01.1974)

Narbdeshwar Misra vs. DIOS, Deoria (1982)

"1. The petitioner was a confirmed lecturer in Mathematics in the Shivaji Inter College,
Knukhondoo, Deoria.

2. Purporting to exercise powers under the proviso to clause 2 of Chapter II of the
Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 on the retirement of the permanent
Principal namely Sri Banshidhar Dixit of the aforesaid College. the committee of management
pasted a resolution dated 9th of October, 1977 appointing the petitioner as the officiating Principal
of the College. It is not disputed that the petitioner has since been working as the officiating
Principal of the College. When however, the Manager of the College forwarded the bills of the
petitioners salary as the Principal of the College to the District Inspector of Schools, the latter
refused to clear the bills of the petitioner on the ground that there was no provision for payment of
salary in the principals grade to those who were appointed merely to net as affiliating Principal.
The petitioner, thereafter, personally met the District Inspector of schools and placed before him
his grievance that under the proviso to Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Regulations read
with Regulations 46 of Chapter III of the Regulations the petitioner was entitled to be paid the
salary of a Principal. Having failed to obtain any redress from the District Inspector of Schools, the
petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner contends that the proviso to Regulation 2 of Chapter II was clearly
attracted to his case and that consequently be was entitled under Regulation 46 of Chapter III to be
paid the salary of a Principal. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that under the
various Removal of Difficulties Orders issued by the Government from time to time the petitioner
could be appointed as officiating Principal for a period not exceeding six months. He was hence not
entitled to be paid any salary beyond that period.
1 All. Samita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
995

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the
contention of the petitioner is well founded. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Regulations
reads as follows:

"2. (1) The posts of the Head of Institution shall, except as provided in clause (2) be filled
by direct recruitment after reference to the Selection Committee 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 instruction 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 exceeding
six months or by death retirement or suspension of any incumbent occurring during an educational
session in the pest of the Head of Instruction shall be filled by the promotion of the senior most
qualified teacher, if any, in the highest grade in Institution.

5. The next relevant provision is clause (3) of Regulation No. 2 of Chapter II which reads
thus:-

"Where the temporary vacancy in the past of the head of institution is for a period not
exceeding thirty days, the senior most teacher in the highest grade may be allowed to work as
acting head or institution, but he shall not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than the scale of pay
in which he is drawing salary as such teacher."

6. A perusal of the proviso to Regulation No. 2 (1) shows that the petitioner's care was
squarely covered by it. The petitioner was appointed in the vacancy caused by the retirement of
Banshidhar Dixit, to officiate as the Principal of the College. The petitioner was the senior most
teacher. He was, therefore, lawfully appointed as the officiating Principal contemplated by the
proviso.

7. In Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, Badaun 1980
UPLBEC 286, a Division Bench of this court rules that a teacher officiating on the post of Principal
is entitled to receive salary in the Principals grade as provided by the Government Order dated/181-1974. This decision does support the petitioners contention.

8. The same conclusion also flows from clause (3) of Regulation No. 2 quoted above. The
provision that where the temporary vacancy in the past of the Head of the institution is for a period
exceeding thirty days, the senior most teacher may be allowed to work as acting head of the
Institution but that he would not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than that in which he was
drawing his salary as a teacher clearly suggests that where the vacancy in the post of Principal lasts
more than 180 days, the teacher appointed to officiate as the Principal under the aforesaid proviso
would entitled to the salary admissible to a Principal.

9. The aforesaid statutory provisions, therefore, clearly point to the conclusion that the
petitioner was, as the officiating principal of the College, entitled to be paid the salary of a
principal. The respondent no. 1 was consequently not justified in refusing the salary of a Principal
to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was merely officiating as the Principal.
996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. As regards the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that under the various
Removal of Difficulties Orders the officiating appointment could last only for a period of six
months, it is sufficient to say that, that was not the ground on which the payment of salary in the
Principals grade was refused by the District Inspector of Schools. On the other hand from annexure
4 to the writ petition which is a copy of the letter of the Deputy Director of Education dated 3rd of
July 1981 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools (with a copy forwarded to the petitioner) it
is clear that the petitioner was still being treated as the officiating Principal of the College, The
Deputy Director of Education pointed out the relevant statutory provisions applicable to the
payment of salary to officiating Principals and observed that the District Inspector of Schools
should comply with those provisions. We, therefore, find no substance in this submission raised by
the learned Standing counsel.

11. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The District Inspector of Schools,
Deoria is directed to pay salary to the petitioner admissible to the Principals as long as the
petitioner continues to be the officiating Principal of the aforesaid College. We, however, make no
orders as to costs."

(Note :- In above judgment, relevant provision i.e. Proviso to Regulation 2(1) and
2(3) of Chapter-II of Regulations were considered, however, the words "in the highest grade
in institution" was not specifically considered and further G.O. dated 24.01.1973 was also
followed.)

Soloman Morar Jha vs. DIOS, Deoria (1985)

"By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner claimed
relief for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
(hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.), dated April 30, 1983 and for the issue of a writ of
mandamus commanding the D.I.O.S. to pay the petitioner"s salary in Principal"s grade, and also to
pay him the entire arrears of salary.

The petitioner is a seniormost lecturer in B.G.M. College, Bhagalpur, district Deoria, an
aided and recognised institution. On the retirement of the permanent Principal of the College, the
Committee of Management appointed the petitioner as the acting Principal, by resolution dated 266-1981. The petitioner took charge of the office of the principal, on July 1, 1981 and since then he
has been working as the acting Principal of the institution, with the approval of the D.I.O.S. The
Committee of Management made a reference to the D.I.O.S. for the payment of the salary in the
Principal"s grade, but the Inspector, by his letter dated April 30, 1983, refused to pay the salary to
the petitioner, in the principal"s grade, on the ground that there is no provision in the U. P.
Intermediate Education Act or the Regulations framed thereunder, for paying the salary to a person
officiating on the post of Principal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

There is no dispute that a permanent vacancy arose in the post of principal in the
institution. There is, further, no dispute that the petitioner, being a seniormost teacher, was
appointed to officiate on the post of Principal. Admittedly, the petitioner has been functioning as
the acting Principal since 1-7-1981 and in that capacity, he has been discharging the functions of
1 All. Samita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
997
the Principal. Since the petitioner has been performing the duties and functions of the Principal, he
is entitled to salary in the Principal"s grade, for the period during which he continues to work as the
Principal. In Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. D.I.O.S. Budaun 1980 UPLBEC 286 as well as in
Narvadeshwar Misra v. D.I.O.S. Deoria, 1982 UPLBEC 171, two Division Benches of this Court
held that a lecturer officiating in the post of Principal is entitled to salary in the Principal"s grade.
The D.I.O.S. is under a legal obligation to pay the salary to a person for the period during which he
acts as a Principal. The law is very well settled in this respect. The D.I.O.S. has refused to pay the
salary to the petitioner in an unjustified manner.

On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that Regulation 2 (1) of Chapter II of
Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act is not applicable to the minority
institution. No doubt, the institution in which the petitioner is acting as Principal is a minority
institution but that does not affect the legal position. Proviso to Regulation 2 (1) of Chapter II of the
Regulations does not prohibit the payment of salary to a lecturer in the Principal"s grade, for the
period during which he officiates on that post. The view taken by the DIOS is unjustified.

In the result, we allow the petition and quash the order of the DIOS, Deoria, dated April
30, 1983 and direct the Inspector to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner in the Principal"s
grade, for the period during which he had been working as acting Principal in the institution and
also to pay to the petitioner the salary for the period during which he continues to act as officiating
Principal."

(Note :- Above judgment was in regard to Minority Institution and that judgment of
1980 and 1982 were held to applicable to said institution also and not above decision is
applicable to said institution also.)

9. Relevant paragraphs of Full Bench judgment of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh (supra)
are quoted below :-

"Issues

1. Whether there is a conflict between the ratio of the decisions in the cases, of Daljeet
Singh v. State of U.P. (2007 (7) AWC 7687) and Om Saran Tripathi v. State of U.P. (2010 (1)
AWC 374) and if so, which of the views lays down the law correctly; and whether an officiating
Principal appointed under Statute 10.20 of Purvanchal University, is entitled to claim payment of
salary in the regular grade of the Principal or not.

Essentially, the issue is whether a teacher who is appointed to officiate as principal on the
permanent post of a principal falling vacant in a college affiliated to a State University, is entitled
to the pay scale and grade of a regular principal.

2. In the following decisions, Division Benches of this Court directed the payment of
salary drawn by a principal to an officiating principal of a degree college:
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) Durga Prasad Dwivedi v. Director of Higher Education (CMWP No. 8738, 1988,
decided on 11 July, 1994). This judgment was referred to and followed in:

(i) Raghu Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. (CMWP No. 39699 of 1993, decided on 13
November, 1997);

(ii) Anand Prakash Tyagi v. State of U.P. (CMWP No. 46257 of 1999, decided on 2
November, 1999); and

(iii) Madan Gopal Mittal v. State of U.P. (CMWP No. 42012 of 2004, decided on 7October, 2004);

(2) Paras Nath Pandey v. District Inspector of Schools ((1995) AWC 603": 1995 All LJ
1136);

(3) Dr. Govind Nam Niranjan v. District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun at Orai, 1996 AWC 1757 :
(1997 All LJ 172); and

(4) Om Saran Tripathi v. State of U.P., 2009 (4) ESC 3023.

3. However, in Daljeet Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that under the
Statutes of the University, the senior most teacher is not appointed as officiating principal but is
only permitted to discharge the duties of a principal. In coming to this conclusion, the Division
Bench placed reliance on the following decisions of Division Benches of the Court:

(1) Sheo Shanker Tripathi v. Director of Education (Sanskrit), UP Allahabad, 2007 (4)
AWC 3636 : (2007 (4) All LJ (NOC) 687); and

(2) Vijay Rani v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Region I, Meerut, 2007 (2) ESC
987 : (2007 (2) All LJ 694).

4. For the completeness of the record, we note that Division Benches of this Court in me
following decisions directed the payment of salary drawn by a principal to an officiating principal
of a secondary school:

(1) Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, Budaun (1980 UPLBEC
286),

(2) Narbdeshwar Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria (1982 UPLBEC 171); and

(3) Soloman Morar Jha v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria (1985 UPLBEC 113).

A conflict of decisions has arisen. That, the Full Bench is called upon to resolve.

xxx
1 All. Samita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
999

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

29. A somewhat similar situation had arisen under the provisions of the UP Secondary
Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. That Act was enacted to establish a Secondary
Education Service Commission for the selection of teachers in institutions recognized under the
Intermediate Education Act 1921. The expression "teacher" was defined tdo include a principal.
Section 16 provided that subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 33 and certain other sections,
every appointment of a teacher upon the commencement of the Act would be made by the
management only on the recommendation of the Commission and an appointment made in
contravention of the provisions would be void. Section 18 dealt with ad hoc appointments of
teachers. Since the provisions of Section 16 were made subject to Section 18, ad hoc appointments
could be validly made under;Section 18. However, after the enactment of UP Act 1 of 1993,
Section 16 was substituted and Section 18 of the Principal Act was sought to be deleted. Section 33
empowered the State Government to issue and notify Orders for removing any difficulty, during
such period as may be specified in the Order, whereupon the provisions of the Act would have
effect subject to adaptations whether by way of modification, addition or omission. Two notified
Orders were issued under Section 33(1). Neither of the two Orders provided for any time limit
during which the orders would remain effective.

30. These provisions came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in
Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, (1994) 3
UPLBEC 1551 : (1994 All LJ 1077) Dealing with the situation, the Full Bench held as follows:

""After enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 except Section 13 thereof the situation
that emerges is that by new Section 11 of Amendment Act which has substituted Section 16 of the
Principal Act, has come into force whereas the omission of Section 18 from the principal Act by
Section 13 of this amending Act has not been enforced which means Section 18 still continues in
the Principal Act. In view of this legislative development a peculiar situation has arisen that new
Section 16 which has come into force is no longer subject to Section 18 of the Act which means
that no appointment on ad hoc basis can be made under Section 18 of the Act. New Section 16
begins with a non-obstante clause which means in spite of other provision, no appointment shall be
made except on the recommendation of the Board. Where a section begins with a non-obstante
clause, it indicates that the provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in the
provisions in the Act. Thus after omission of Section 18 from Section 16 no ad hoc appointment is
permissible under Section 18 and if made, would be void under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the
Act. It has not been brought to my notice that First Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 issued by
the State Government has either been revoked or rescinded. Oh the contrary, it was asserted that the
said Removal of Difficulties Order is continuing. Now the question for consideration is that if no ad
hoc appointment of teacher or Principal can be made under Section 18 of the Act, whether it is
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permissible to appoint a teacher or Principal on ad hoc basis under the First Removal of Difficulties
Order? A perusal of Section 16 would show that Section 16 is still subject to Section 33 of the Act
which empowers the State Government to issue Removal of Difficulties Order. Since Removal of
Difficulties Orders have been issued under. Section 33 of the Act, an ad hoc appointment either by
direct recruitment or by promotion under the Removal of Difficulties Order would be a valid
appointment."

31. Hence, the Full Bench took the view that even after the omission of a reference to the
provisions of Section 18 in Section 16 following UP Act 1 of 1993, since Section 16 was still
subject to Section 33, ad hoc appointments could be made both under the First and Second
Removal of Difficulties Orders that had been issued under Section 33.

xxx

33. Hence, as the Supreme Court noted, the State Government could have provided the
period during which the Removal of Difficulties Orders could operate but such a provision was not
made in these Orders limiting the period of operation. The Removal of Difficulties Orders were,
therefore, construed to be permanent and not transient and reliance was placed on the decisions of
the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada (1994 All LJ 1077) (supra).

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

45. We may again note that several decisions have taken the view that a person who has
officiated on the post of a principal of a secondary school would be entitled to the salary of a
principal. These decisions were in:

(i) Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools (supra);

(ii) Narbdeshwar Misra v. District Inspector of Schools (supra); and

(iii) Soloman Morar Jha v. District Inspector of Schools (supra).

xxx

xxx
1 All. Samita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1001

xxx

xxx

57. We, accordingly, dispose of the reference in the following terms:

(i) The decision in Daljeet Singh (supra) does not lay down the correct position in law;
and (ii) An officiating principal appointed under the Statutes of the University, which are pari
materia to the provisions of Statute. 10-B of the First Statutes would be entitled to claim the
payment of salary in the regular grade of principal for the period during which he or she has
worked until a regularly selected candidate has been appointed and has assumed charge of the
office."

10. Court also takes note of a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Secretary,
U.P. Basic Education Board and others vs. Tripurari Dubey, 2025 (5) ADJ 561 (DB) and
relevant paragraphs thereof are quoted below :-

"16.