The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of seniority in the appointment of an officiating Principal and the obligation of the management to follow specific guidelines when superseding a senior teacher.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the three petitioners, namely, the Committee of Management, Kisan Vidya Mandir College, Pansar, saharanpur, through its Manager Jai Krit Singh ; Jai Krit Singh in his individual capacity as manager and Tej Pal Singh who is the officiating Principal of the college, seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3rd December, 2003, passed by the district Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, and other consequential reliefs.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri V. K. Singh on behalf of the petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and sri K. P. Shukla appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

( 3 ) THE brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : in the district of Saharanpur, there is an intermediate college, known as Kisan Vidya Mandir college, situate at Pansar, (hereinafter referred to as "the College" ). It is a recognised and aided college. One Hem Singh Pundir was functioning as the permanent Principal in the college. In the year 1996 he was elected as member of the U. P. Legislative Council. In the year 1997 he proceeded on long leave. A short term vacancy, i. e. , leave vacancy had occurred and the committee of management decided to appoint an officiating Principal. The committee of management requested Rajendra Singh Rana, respondent No. 3, to act as the officiating principal, which he declined. At that time, other senior teachers in the college also declined, whereupon the committee of management appointed Kadam Singh to perform the function of the officiating Principal in the College. This arrangement continued till Hem Singh Pundir joined after his leave expired. Again, in the year 1998 Hem Singh Pundir went on leave. This time also the respondent No. 3 declined to act as the officiating Principal. The committee of management appointed Satyapal Singh as the officiating Principal. He fell ill in July, 1999 and it became difficult for him to continue to discharge the function of the officiating Principal. In July, 1999, the committee of management requested the respondent No. 3 to act as the officiating Principal but he declined. The committee of management appointed Udai Pal Singh as the officiating principal of the college. In the year 2001, Hem Singh Pundir again went on leave and this time too respondent No. 3 declined to act as the officiating Principal in the college. The committee of management appointed Udai Pal Singh as the officiating Principal. Hem Singh Pundir after his leave expired, came and Joined as Principal. He retired on 30th June, 2003. A question arose as to who should be appointed as the officiating Principal of the College. The committee of management taking into account the fact that the respondent No. 3 had declined to hold the post of the officiating Principal on earlier three occasions, appointed Tej Pal Singh, petitioner No. 3 as the officiating Principal in the college. The respondent No. 3 made an application/representation before the District Inspector of Schools on 30th June, 2003 alleging therein that he has been bypassed without any sufficient reason. When the District Inspector of schools was not taking any decision on his representation, the respondent No. 3 approached this court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40239 of 2003 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11. 9. 2003 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the Committee of management and Tej Pal Singh, (presently the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 respectively ). This Court had given the following directions :

"the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decid