A Government Order (G.O.) giving teachers the right to exercise an option to retire at a certain age should not be interpreted in a technical manner, and teachers should not be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their option due to ambiguity in the language of the G.O.

( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19-5-1993 by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by Smt. Kushal Varshney. The appellant Smt. Kamla sharma was not a party to the writ petition, but she has filed the appeal with the leave of the court which was granted on 21-7-1993.

( 2 ) THE writ Petitioner Smt. Kushal Varshney was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Chiranji Lal girls Inter College, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the College) in 1961 and was promoted as principal in July, 1972. Under Regulation 21 to Chapter III of Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the age of retirement of a principal is 60 years. According to the case of the writ petitioner, a Government Order was issued in 1978 giving option to the teachers to take retirement at the age of 58 years Thereafter, another Government Order was issued on 6-10-1990 by which teachers were given right to exercise their option within 90 days. The writ petitioner, accordingly, filled in the prescribed form for exercising option on 24-10-1990 and forwarded the same to the office of the District inspector of Schools. However no orders on the said option were passed and the State government issued another G. O. on 4-11-1991 giving right to the teachers to exercise their option. According to the Petitioner, she exercised her right again on 4-1-1992 modifying the earlier option dated 24-10-1990 and expressed her desire to continue upto the age of 60 years. The Deputy Director Education, however, vide his order dated 15-9-1992 accepted the first option exercised by her by which she could continue upto 58 years. According to the petitioner, as she had exercised second option on 4-1-1992, it was not open to the Deputy Director education to have accepted her first option on 15-9-1992. The Petitioner accordingly filed the writ petition praying for following reliefs :

" (i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the option submitted by petitioner on 4th of January, 1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years, in accordance with Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. " the writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 19-5-1993 and the operative part of the order is reproduced below : "the representation of the petitioner dated 6th January, 1992 Annexure-4 to the writ petition, will be acted upon and appropriate orders passed on it by the District Inspector of Schools, aligarh within two weeks of a certified copy of this order being placed before him to ensure continuity of the petitioners services upto the age of 60 years, which services will not be dispensed with except in accordance with law. Any further approval which the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh may have to seek from elsewhere, he will ensure that it is done within the same period. The Petition, thus, succeeds but there will be no orders on costs. "

The appellant Smt. Kamla Sharma has filed the present special appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and order passed in the writ petition of Smt. Kushal Varshney. The appellant claims that she is senior-most lecturer in the College and had Smt. Kushal Varshney retired at the age of 58 years, she would have got a chance to become Principal of the Institution as the said post would have fallen vacant.

( 3 ) THE first contention of Sri R. N. Singh learned Counsel for the appellant is that in-fact Smt. Kushal Varshney did not exercise any option on 4-1-1992 and on 15-9-1992 when the Deputy director Education had accepted her first option dated 24-10-1990, there was no other option on her behalf and as such no illegality had been committed by the Deputy Director Education while accepting the fir