The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of possessing prescribed qualifications for appointment as an ad hoc Principal, as well as the duty of the Court to consider all statutory provisions dealing with the subject and to give a harmonious construction of the same.

( 1 ) THE question which requires consideration here is whether a senior most teacher in the lecturers grade is entitled to be promoted as an ad hoc Principal of the Institution if he does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the said post.

( 2 ) SHRI Jiyut Prasad Yadav, who was the regular principal of the institution retired on 30. 6. 1999 after attaining the age of superannuation. The appellant Shamshul Zama, who holds a B. Sc. degree and a postgraduate diploma in Zoology, claimed that as he was the senior most teacher in the lecturers grade, he was entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Principal of the Institution. Lalit mohan Chaturvedi, respondent No. 4 refuted the claim of the appellant on the ground that as the appellant did not possess the prescribed minimum qualification, he could not be appointed as ad hoc Principal. The D. I. O. S. by his order dated 27. 8. 1999 directed the Committee of Management of the Institution to appoint respondent No. 4 itt the ad hoc Principal. The appellant preferred the writ petition challenging the aforesaid order but the same was dismissed by 1the learned single judge on 25. 5. 2001.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute on facts. The appellant Shamshul Zama does not possess any post-graduate degree. He is B. Sc. and has done post-graduate diploma in Zoology and is working as lecturer in the institution since 1. 7. 1967. The respondent No. 4 has done M. A. (Hindi) and M. Sc. (Mathematics) and is working as lecturer since 1971, The appellant having been appointed lecturer earlier is obviously senior to respondent No. 4 but he does not possess the essential qualification for the post of principal.

( 4 ) SRI U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982, provides for making ad hoc appointment on the post of a teacher, which in view of Section 2 (k) also includes a principal. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 deals with a teacher other than a principal or head master and lays down that the senior most teacher in the certificate of teaching grade or in the trained graduate grade possessing prescribed qualification may be promoted in the trained graduate grade or in the lecturers grade as the case may be. However, Sub-section (4) of the same section only lays down that a vacancy on the post of a principal may be filed by promoting the senior most teacher in the lecturers grade. According to Sri Sharma, the expression "possessing prescribed qualifications" being absent in Sub-section (4), the senior most teacher in the Lecturers grade has to be promoted as ad hoc principal irrespective of the fact whether he possesses the prescribed qualification or not. Sri Amarnath Tewari, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has submitted that unless a teacher in the Lecturers grade holds the prescribed qualification, he cannot be promoted as ad hoc principal. He has further submitted that an identical question was considered by a Division Bench in S. A. No. 810 of 1993, Desh Raj Singh and Ors. v. Pramod kumar Jindal and Anr. , decided on 26. 8. 1994, wherein, it was held that unless a person possesess the prescribed qualifications, he cannot be appointed as ad hoc Principal of the institution. Learned counsel has also urged that a similar view was recently taken by a learned single Judge in C. M. W. P. No, 3236 of 2001. Nath Singh v. Deputy Director of Education and ors. , which has been decided on 2,2. 2001 and the Special Appeal No. 154 of 2001 preferred against the said judgment was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench on 20. 2. 2001.

( 5 ) THE U. P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act. 1982, has undergone several amendments since the decision of S. A. No. 810 of 1993. Desh Raj Singh and Ors. v. Pramod kumar Jindal and Anr. , but the language of Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2), Sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act has not undergone any change and, co