# Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 230
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veeresh-chandra-mishra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54325
- **Pages:** 18

## Text

_Characters 0–39,986 of 62,466. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39986 for what follows._

230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Area (DAA)/ 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Eta in Special Session Trial No. 567 of 1984 is hereby
set aside and accused-appellant Ram Niwas is hereby acquitted of the charge of Section 411 I.P.C.

23. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are hereby discharged.

24. Let this judgment and order be communicated to the learned trial court concerned for
taking necessary actions.

25. Let the original records be sent back to the learned trial court concerned.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 230
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Special Appeal No. 209 of 2026 and other connected cases

Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether an Officiating Principal of an intermediate college was entitled to payment of salary commensurate
to that of Principal?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921: Section 16G; Chapter 1 of the Regulation
framed under the Act, 1921 - The submission that the provisions of Intermediate Education Act,
1921 and the precedential law (governing the appointment of ad-hoc principals at such
institutions) has lost force, is too sweeping to merit acceptance.

Overriding effect of the Commission Act - U/s 30, the Commission Act has been given overriding effect
over the provision of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, w.r.t. selection of teachers and instructors, which
obviously include Principal (under section 2(n) of the said Act). (Para 37)

A.(a) The words 'regarding the selection of teachers' appearing in section 30 of the Commission
Act are being read by the Court restrictively- to only imply and refer to regular selections of such
teachers. To that extent, the provisions of the Commission Act would override the provisions of the
Intermediate Act. Consequently, to that extent, any person authorised to function as an Officiating
Principal, may never claim after right to continue on such substantive post, after the
appointment of a regular principal. That provision may only provide for the interregnum- arising out of
exigency and not volition of the Committee of Management of such institution. Therefore, that arrangement
made may remain protected from the harsh consequences of section 30 of the Commission Act.
For the above reason, section 31(3) of that Act may also not affect the rights claimed by the
original petitioners/appellants. (Para 41)
3 All. Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
231
A.(b) It cannot be recognized in law that in absence of a direct provision for appointment of an
ad-hoc Principal at an Intermediate College, the legislative intent has been expressed to not
provide any adhoc/Officiating Principal, in all circumstances. In fact, the provisions of Commission
Act are silent to that effect, but not inconsistent to the Intermediate Act. While they provide for regular
appointments, the legislature, in its wisdom has not provided for ad-hoc/Officiating arrangements to be made,
as was done under the Board Act. However, that does not create any difficulty while interpreting the law in
that regard inasmuch as prior to enforcement of the Board Act, a similar position existed. In absence of any
contrary provision, the provisions of the Regulation were interpreted and read to provide that such interim
arrangements may be made for which a commensurate salary payments may also arise. (Para 38, 39, 40)

B. The provisions of Intermediate Act were inconsistent to the Board Act to the extent that those
Regulations did provide for a different method for appointment of Officiating Principal. (Para 31)

Earlier under the Intermediate Act, any teacher who may have officiated as Principal of a grantin-aid Intermediate College, would become entitled to payment of higher salary, commensurate
to that of a Principal of that institution. (Para 28)

Thereafter, upon enforcement of the Board Act, that legal principle was statutorily recognized in the shape
and form of section 18 of the said Act. R/w rule 11(4) of the Rules framed thereunder, the only difference
that emerged was on the own strength of Rule 11(4) of the Rules. Thus, the appointment of ad-hoc principal
came to be initiated at the hands of the Committee of Management, in terms of Rule 11(1), r/w Rule 11(2).
Only in the event of failure on the part of Committee of Management, the D.I.O.S. would himself determine
the vacancy at the institution. (Para 29)

That principle may not govern the fate of this intra-Court appeal inasmuch as the dispute has
arisen not in the context of Board Act, but in view of the enforcement of the Commission Act.
That Act, does not provide for appointment or promotion on ad-hoc basis, against the substantive vacancies
on the post of Principal at Intermediate Colleges under grant-in-aid of the State Government. It only provides
for determination of vacancies, requisitions and selections. (Para 32)

C. The continuance of Officiating Principal for whatever duration, may create no rights in the
such person other than right to receive higher salary for the period for which he may officiate on
the post of Principal. Having recognized that a person is required to officiate as Principal of an intermediate
college by way of necessity existing in law and he is required to perform higher and more onerous duties,
than that of any other teacher at such institution, his right to receive higher salary commensurate to such
duties discharged, may never be defeated. (Para 42)

D. As under the Board Act, so under the Commission Act, first obligation exists on the Committee
of Management and failing that the D.I.O.S. is obligated to notify the substantive vacancy. (Para
34, 35)

In the present set of cases, neither the Committee of Management of the individual Institutions nor the DIOS
have acted in the manner prescribed by the law. Against substantive vacancy that had admittedly arisen at
individual institutions, (on the post of Principal), neither the Committee of Management of those institutions
notified to the Board (under the Board Act), or to the authorized officer/ D.I.O.S. (under the Commission Act)
such vacancies, nor the Board or the D.I.O.S. have acted to determine and notify such vacancies at the
relevant time. Thus, all the original petitioners/appellants are described to have worked against
substantive vacancies, not notified at the relevant time. (Para 36)

D.(a) Occurrence of substantive vacancies is not an unforseen event either for the Committee of
Management or the Board or the DIOS. Except in cases of resignation, death etc., all other
vacancies are known to all, from before. Though the point of initiation of the exercise (to appoint an
Officiating Principal), arises at the hands of the Committee of Management- that must notify the vacancy as
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
soon as it occurs, at the same time in the scheme of things it remains undenied that all service record of
teachers including Principal of Intermediate Colleges are available and are regularly maintained by the
statutory authorities including the D.I.O.S., having territorial jurisdiction. In any case, both under the Board
Act, and now in Commission Act, it is not the scheme of the statutory law that unless the Committee of
Management notifies the vacancies, no vacancy may ever arise or be notified at an Intermediate College. On
the contrary, the legislative mandate remains, if the Committee of Management fails to notify such
vacancy by 15 July of the recruitment year in question (under the Commission Act), the
DIOS/authorized officer, is obligated to notify such vacancy. (Para 44)

D.(b) Direct evidence of knowledge of such vacancy with the DIOS exists in each of these case,
inasmuch as the signature of the original petitioners/appellants have been attested by the
Competent Authority, before allowing them to Officiate as Principal of their respective colleges.
Once that action was performed and corresponding duties came to be discharged without any objection being
raised ever, there remains no doubt that existence of vacancies was known to the statutory authorities
including the D.I.O.S./Authorized officer. (Para 45)

Therefore, the failure on the part of the Committee of Management to notify such vacancies, may
not be looked at in isolation, to defeat the right of the original petitioners /appellants- to be paid
higher salary. Equally, the D.I.O.S./authorized officers are to be blamed. Long time passed before vacancies
may have been notified. Even then it remains further admitted to the respondent State, that no fresh regular
appointments have yet been made- as may disentitle any of the petitioners/appellants, to continue to officiate
as Principal at their respective Intermediate College. (Para 46)

Original petitioners/appellants are entitled to continue as Officiating Principal of their respective Intermediate
Colleges, till any regularly appointed candidate is made available, to such institutions. And, for the duration of
their continuance as Officiating Principal, they shall be entitled to payment of higher salary of Principal,
without any other or further relief. (Para 48)

Special appeals allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan Vs. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 0 UPLBEC 286 (Para 5)
2. Narbdeshwar Misra Vs. District Inspector of School, Deoria, 1982 0 UPLBEC 171 (Para 5)
3. Soloman Morar Jha Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, 1985 UPLBEC 113 (Para 5)
4. State of U.P. and two others Vs. Sakhawat Ullah Khan and another, 2026:AHC:25538:DB (Para 11)
5. Ravindra Singh Niranjan Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi and another, 1988 SCC Online All 4; (1988)
1 AWC 658 (Para 24)
6. Munishwar Dutt Pandey Vs. Ramjeet Tiwari and others, (1997) 3 SCC 599 (Para 24)

List of Acts
U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921.

List of Keywords
salary, payment, grade, ad-hoc, selection, recruitment, appointment, vacancy, education, principal.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant(s): Prashant Shukla, Ram Prakash Upadhyay
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.)
3 All. Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
233

(Order on Civil Misc. Leave to Appeal Application No. 01 of 2026 and Civil Misc.
Exemption Application No. 02 of 2026 filed in Special Appeal Defective No. 174 of 2026)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. In absence of any serious objection, the present applications are allowed.

(Order on Special Appeal)

3. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the original petitioner-appellant, Sri
Kartikey Saran, Additional Advocate General and Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

4. Present intra Court appeals have arisen against the common judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 27.01.2026, Samit vs. State of U.P. and 2 others and 11 connected
writ petitions, 2026:AHC:17253. By that order, the writ Court has disposed of the writ petitions
filed by the original petitioners-appellants. In effect, the writ petitions had been filed seeking a
direction on the respondent State Authorities for payment of salary commensurate to that payable
to principal of different inter-colleges, covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State
Government.

5. Primarily, in view of U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Commission Act), and U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Rules,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission Rules'), the original petitioner/appellant have been
found dis-entitled to receive salary commensurate to that of principal of Intermediate College,
though it is an admitted case between the parties that original petitioners/appellants were officiating
as principal at their respective intermediate colleges- all covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of
the State Government. In doing that the writ Court has observed that three earlier decisions of
coordinate benches in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan vs. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 0
UPLBEC 286, Narbdeshwar Misra vs. District Inspector of School, Deoria, 1982 0 UPLBEC
171 and Soloman Morar Jha vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, 1985
UPLBEC 113 are no longer good law.

6. For ready reference, the facts pertaining to Writ -A No. 19255, Veeresh Chandra Mishra
and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others are as follows. The original petitioner, Veeresh Chandra
Mishra, was initially appointed as lecturer (Chemistry) by the Service Selection Board on
16.08.2001. He was allotted Swatantra Bharat Inter College, Surjawali Via Khurja, Bulandshahar
vide order dated 16.10.2001. Against appointment letter dated 18.10.2001, he joined that
institution. On 30.12.2022, the then principal of said the institution namely, Anil Kumar submitted
his resignation. He handed over charge to the petitioner, who was the senior most lecturer working
at the institution.

7. Thereafter, the signature of the petitioner was attested by the D.I.O.S, Bulandshahar on
13.1.2023. Since then, the petitioner has been officiating as principal of that institution and he has
been discharging his duties in that capacity. However, he was not paid salary commensurate to the
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
post of principal on which he has officiated. This led the petitioner to file the writ petition. It has
been disposed of.

8. In some of the other petitions, slight difference of facts exists, inasmuch as some of the
petitioners were being paid salary commensurate to their officiating as principal of their respective
institutions. Upon enforcement of the Commission Act, that salary payment has been withheld.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of petitioners submissions have
been first advanced by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the original petitioner Veeresh
Chandra Mishra. He would submit- initially, under the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Intermediate Act'), and the Regulations framed thereunder,
provision existed for appointment of Officiating Principal, upon temporary or substantive vacancy
on the post of Principal. At that time, a dispute arose, if an Officiating Principal of an intermediate
college was entitled to payment of salary commensurate to that of Principal. In Dhaneshwar Singh
Chauhan (supra), the petitioner was a permanent lecturer at such an institution. While allowing
the claim for payment of salary commensurate to that of Principal against work of Officiating
Principal, a coordinate bench had considered that the salary of a teacher at aided and recognized
institutions was regulated by the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Act, read with the
orders issued by the State Government from time to time. Further, Regulation 46 under Chapter III
of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Act clearly recognized that the salary payment
shall be commensurate to the pay scale sanctioned by the State Government. Taking note of a
Government Order dated 18.01.1974, it was recognized that the State Government had accepted the
recommendation of the U.P. Pay Commission prescribing pay scales for teachers. Moreover,
Clause 5(2) of the said Government Order was read to entitle an Officiating Principal or Officiating
Teacher to salary in the higher grade, commensurate to the post on which such person may have
officiated. For failure on the part of the State Government to establish that any subsequent
Government Order had been issued or any other Rule had been enforced, providing for another
scheme and further upon failure to produce any material before the Court to establish that the
claimant petitioner was not entitled to higher salary claimed, order to the contrary passed by the
D.I.O.S was quashed and a positive direction was issued, for payment of higher salary.

10. Then referring to Narbdeshwar Misra (supra), it has been contended that in that case, the
ratio in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan (supra) was applied and followed. Specifically referring to
Clause 3 of Regulation 2 of the regulation framed under the first Act, a coordinate bench in
Narbdeshwar Misra (supra), further observed that the payment of higher salary would arise upon
vacancy continuing beyond 30 days. Thereafter, considering the fact that the claimant petitioner
had continued to work in the capacity of Officiating Principal beyond the period of six months, he
was found entitled to payment of higher salary.

11. Not only that consistent view had arisen through the pronouncements of the coordinate
benches in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan (supra) and Narbdeshwar Misra (supra), more than 40
years ago, but in Soloman Morar Jha (supra), the said principle was extended to minority
institutions, as well. Recently, another coordinate bench has applied the same principle to minority
institutions, in the present legislative context. Thus, in State of U.P. and two others vs. Sakhawat
3 All. Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
235
Ullah Khan and another, 2026:AHC:25538:DB, the decision in Soloman Morar Jha (supra)
has been followed by a bench, of which one of us was a constituent.

12. As to the statutory provision, Sri Shukla has first referred to Chapter 2, Regulation 2 of the
Regulations framed thereunder. Thus, reliance has been placed on Proviso to sub-Clause (1) of
Clause 2 of that Regulation. For ready reference, the same is extracted as below:-

"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 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
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.

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."

emphasis supplied.

That legislative scheme was interpreted by the coordinate bench in Dhaneshwar Singh
Chauhan (supra) and Narbdeshwar Misra (supra).

13. Following the said decision, legislative action followed. The ratio in Dhaneshwar Singh
Chauhan (supra) and Narbdeshwar Misra (supra) found legislative expression upon
incorporation of UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Board Act'). Under section 18 of the said Act, a specific provision was made for Ad-hoc
promotion as principal at Government Intermediate Colleges. For ready reference section 18 of the
Board Act reads as below:-

"Section 18: Ad hoc Principals or Headmasters

(1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Board, in accordance with subsection (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.
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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.

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

14. That legislative scheme remained in force for more than 40 years. Though upon
enforcement of Commission Act, the Board Act has been repealed, at the same time the conditions
of service of teachers as were governed under the Intermediate Act and the Regulations have been
saved by virtue of Section 16 of the said Act. Referring to Section 31 of the Commission Act, it has
been further submitted, while the Board Act has been repealed, the Intermediate Act remains
enforce. For ready reference Section 16 and 31 or the Commission Act read as below:-

16. Conditions of Service of Teachers or Instructors-The conditions of service of teacher
or instructor can be decided as per the provisions given in the relevant Acts/Service
Rules/Regulations/University Statues, as the case may be.

31. Repeal and Savings.-(1) The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission
Act, 1980, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Uttar
Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2019 are hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Acts
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act, as if the
provisions of this Act were in force at all material times.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the repeal of the Acts referred to in subsection (1) shall not have an adverse effect on the general application of section 6 of the Uttar
Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904) in relation to the enforcement of
provisions."

15. Thus, even though the Board Act stands repealed, the principle in law, providing for
payment of higher salary, commensurate to the post of Principal- to an Officiating Principal of a
grant-in-aid Intermediate College, who may have officiated in that capacity against substantive
vacancy, clearly exists, in view of the pre-existing decisions of the coordinate benches in
Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan (supra) and Narbdeshwar Misra (supra).

16. Contesting the above submissions, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the
situation had completely changed upon enforcement of the Board Act and after it's repeal.
Therefore, the judicial principle emanating from Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan (supra) and
Narbdeshwar Misra (supra), no longer exists. He has first referred to section 10 and 16 of the
Board Act. Those provisions read as below:-

"10. Procedure of selection by direct recruitment. (1) For the purpose of making
appointment of a teacher, by direct recruitment, the management shall determine the number of
vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment and in the case of a post
3 All. Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
237
other than the post of Head of the Institution, also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes
of citizens in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and notify the vacancies to the
Board in such manner and through such officer or authority as may be prescribed.

(2) The procedure of selection of candidates for direct recruitment to the post of teachers
shall be such as may be prescribed:

Provided that the Board shall, with a view to inviting talented persons, give wide
publicity in the State to the vacancies notified under sub-section (1).

16. Appointment to be made only on the recommendation of the Board. (1)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the
regulations made thereunder but 3[subject to the provisions of 4["Sections 12, 18, 21-B, 21-C, 21D, [21-E, 21-F, 21-G, 33, 33-A, 33-B, 33-C, 33-D, and 33-F and 33-G"], every appointment of a
teacher, shall on or after the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2001 be made by the management only on the
recommendation of the Board").

17. The above provisions are described to be provisions for regular appointment only. They
may have no application to ad-hoc appointment and ad-hoc promotion against vacancy on the post
of Principal. That provision had been specifically made under section 18 of the Board Act. It read
as below:-

"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 seniormost teacher under sub-section (1)
the inspector shall himself issue the order of pro-motion 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.

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

18. To give full effect, that provision had to be read along with Rule 11 (4) of the Rules
framed under the Board Act. For ready reference Rule 11(4) reads as below:-
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"11. Determination and notification of vacancies- (4) Where, for any year of
recruitment, the Management does not notify the vacancies by the date specified in sub-rule(2) or
fails to notify them in accordance with the said sub-rule, the Inspector shall on the basis of the
record of his office, determine the vacancies in such institution in accordance with sub-section (1)
of Section 10 and notify them to the Board in the manner and by the date referred to in the said
sub-rule. The vacancies notified to the Board under this sub-rule shall be deemed to be notified"

19. In view of above, it has been submitted, for the purposes of making an ad-hoc promotion
on the post of Principal, the legislative intent had emerged that the vacancy must first be notified by
the Committee of Management of the institution, to the Board. Only in the event of failure on part
of the Board to make substantive appointment within next two months, occasion would arise, to
provide for ad-hoc promotion on the post of Principal. That scheme was materially different from
the one that pre-existed, under the Intermediate Act. Then, reference has been made to section 32 of
the Board Act. It clearly provides that the provisions of the Intermediate Act, insofar as they may
not be inconsistent to the Board Act shall continue to be enforced. To the extent under that Act, no
ad-hoc promotion/ appointment may have been made on the post of Principal, unless vacancy has
been notified by the Committee of Management to the Board, the pre-existing scheme under the
Intermediate Act was clearly altered and was therefore rendered unenforceable. Coming to
Commission Act, reliance has been placed on the provisions of section 10, which has been
described to be a provision parallel to the provision 10 of the Board Act. In absence of any
provision parimateria to section 18 of the Board Act (as may have provided for ad-hoc
promotion/appointment against the post of Principal), it has been submitted that the Commission
Act does not contemplate ad-hoc promotion or appointment.

20. Referring to section 30 of the Commission Act, it has been submitted that provisions of
that Act have been given force, notwithstanding anything contrary contained amongst others, in the
Intermediate Act. For ready reference provisions of section 30 read as below:-

"30. Overriding Effect of the Act.-Regarding the selection of teachers or instructors, the
provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contrary to the rules, regulations,
or Statutes contained in the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973, Intermediate Education Act,
1921, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, Uttar Pradesh Government Industrial Training
Institutes (Instructors and Foreman Instructors) Service Rules, 2021."

21. Thereafter, reference has also been made to section 31(3) of the Commission Act. It reads
as below:-

"31. Repeal and Savings.-(1) The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission
Act, 1980, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Uttar
Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2019 are hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Acts
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act, as if the
provisions of this Act were in force at all material times.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the repeal of the Acts referred to in subsection (1) shall not have an adverse effect on the general application of section 6 of the Uttar
3 All. Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
239
Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904) in relation to the enforcement of
provisions."

22. Readwith section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, it has been submitted that on
the date of the repeal of the Board Act, the inconsistent provision of the Intermediate Act did not
revive and therefore, the scheme that had been developed under that Act does not survive.
Consequently, it has been submitted that the writ court has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed
by the original petitioner.

23. By way of clarification and also objection, it has also been stated that the effect of the
Commission Act was not raised before the writ court. Consequently, it has not been considered.
Therefore, it has been suggested that the issue may not be allowed to be raised for the first time in
the present proceedings.

24. Reliance has been placed on the decision of another coordinate bench decision in
Ravindra Singh Niranjan vs. District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi and another, 1988 SCC
Online All 4: (1988) 1 AWC 658, to submit that notification of vacancies under section 18 of the
Board Act was a sine qua non, to claim higher salary as Officiating Principal. Second, referring to
Munishwar Dutt Pandey vs. Ramjeet Tiwari and others (1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 599, it
has been further submitted that any appointment made without following the due procedure i.e.
notification of vacancy, would remain outside section 18 of the Board Act.

25. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first
place, we find that the issue raised is purely legal. It does not involve any dispute on facts. Further,
the present proceedings have arisen by way of intra-Court appeal. They are continuation of the writ
petition. Consequently, the legal submissions advanced as to the effect of the three Acts, on the
claim of the original petitioners/appellants, to higher salary, is being considered, in that light. The
technical objection raised on behalf of the State in that regard, is rejected. A pure legal issue having
arisen before the Court, we propose to decide the same, on its own strength.

26. In the first place, parties are not in dispute that upto the enforcement of Board Act. The
law as laid down by the coordinate bench in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan (supra) existed. In that
coordinate bench had observed as below:-

"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 grate is entitled to officiating salary in the higher grade and it further prescribed
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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."

27. That principle was reiterated by another coordinate bench in Narbdeshwar Misra (supra).
In that, it was observed as below:

"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 18-11974. 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 80 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 theconclusion 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.

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.
3 All. Veeresh Chandra Mishra & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
241

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."

28. In absence of any dispute as to the correctness of the law laid down by those coordinate
benches, it has to be acknowledged that earlier under the Intermediate Act, any teacher who may
have officiated as Principal of a grant-in-aid Intermediate College, would become entitled to
payment of higher salary, commensurate to that of a Principal of that institution.

29. Thereafter, upon enforcement of the Board Act, that legal principle was statutorily
recognized in the shape and form of section 18 of the said Act (extracted above). Read with rule
11(4) of the Rules framed thereunder, the only difference that emerged was on the own strength of
Rule 11(4) of the Rules. Thus, the appointment of ad-hoc principal came to be initiated at the hands
of the Committee of Management, in terms of Rule 11(1), read with Rule 11(2). Only in the event
of failure on the part of Committee of Management, the D.I.O.S. would himself determine the
vacancy at the institution.

30. In that light, the Supreme Court in Munishwar Dutt Pandey (supra), clearly observed
that before any appointment may be made under section 18 of the Board Act, the Committee of
Management ought to have notified the vacancy. We note that in the said decision, the issue was
entirely different.