The main legal point established in the judgment is that placement of Principals should be based on merit, with only one exception for adjusting an ad hoc Principal in the same college, provided the management has no objection. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure for making placements and the need to avoid arbitrariness and discrimination in the process.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12. 5. 2001 and 4,3,2002, by which the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 have been given the placement after being duly selected as Principals in Girls Colleges.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been working since 1. 8. 1968 as a Lecturer in Sanskrit in Manila Maha Vidyalaya, Basti, and as the Principal of the said college retired on 30th June, 1997, being senior-most teacher petitioner had been officiating as Principal w. e. f. 1. 7. 1997 therein. The vacancy on the post of Principal in the said college was advertised along with vacancies in other institutions by the U. P. Higher Secondary Service commission (hereinafter called the Commission ). Petitioner applied for the post giving only one option, i. e. , in the same college. However, the respondent No. 5 also applied giving five options as asked by the Commission putting the same college as her No. 1 option. After completing selection process for all the vacancies, a merit list was prepared. Respondent No. 5 stood at serial No. 3 in merit list while the petitioner stood at Serial No. 6. While making the placement/allotment of the institution, respondent No. 5 had been given the same college Mahila maha Vidyalaya, Basti and the petitioner had been given the posting at another college. Petitioner filed this writ petition contending that as she had been officiating as a Principal in the institution, she was entitled to be adjusted therein.

( 3 ) SHRI G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had been working as officiating Principal in the said institution from 1. 7. 1997. She has a right to be appointed/adjusted as a Principal in the same institution, and therefore, the respondent No. 5 had wrongly been posted there.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel have vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE thrust of argument and the entire claim of the petitioner is based on two Division Bench judgments of this Court. In Dr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava v. Director of Higher Education, allahabad and Anr. , 2003 (1) AWC 142, it has been observed that problems and disputes arise between the Principal and the management when the management is forced to issue an appointment order in favour of a person against its wishes. Thrusting an unwilling Principal on an unwilling management is not in the interest of the institution. Thus the teacher officiating therein, if duly selected may be adjusted therein. This is the only exception to the method and procedure of placement, which the Court has laid down in this judgment.

( 7 ) IN C. M. W. P. No. 39758 of 2001, Km. Alka Rani Gupta v. Director of Education and Anr. , decided on 27. 2. 2003 this Court has considered this issue at great length considering the statutory provisions of U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 and U. P. Higher education Service Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983. The court has categorically held that placement is to be made only on the basis of merit in the select list. The candidate who is on the top should be given the first preference. However, at the time of making the placement of a candidate selected by the Commission, there can be only one exception, that is, he being a candidate and because of his working on ad hoc basis as Principal, he should be accommodated there provided the management has no objection.

( 8 ) SERIOUS contentions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents that there is no provision either in the said Act or Regulations which permits carving out the exception provided by the judicial interpretation in the said case, and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.

( 9