( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Pathak for respondent No. 2 and the learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) THE dispute in this case Is as to who is entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Principal in the institution in question. According to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, ordinarily the seniormost teacher has the right to be appointed as ad hoc Principal. Admittedly, the petitioner is the seniormost teacher in the institution in question and hence according to Radha Raizadas case, the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Principal.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court In Satya Vir Singh v. D. I. O. S. , Bulandshahr, 1995 (1) AWC 122, and he has emphasised on paragraphs 11 and 12 of this decision in which it has been held that once the seniormost teacher has declined to accept the post, he cannot claim the right to function as officiating Principal. In my opinion, this decision is distinguishable. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 had declined to accept the post of principal in the year 1981, Satya Vir Singhs ca