Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri K. Sahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Nandan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of contesting respondents, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No. 4.

2. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage on the basis of the affidavits which have already been exchanged between the parties.

3. Post of Principal in Janta Inter College, Sohasa Mathiya, District Kushinagar has fallen vacant on 30.6.2006 with the retirement of the permanent incumbent.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the institution on 8.7.1970. Respondent No. 5 was similarly appointed as Lecturer on 1.7.1970.

5. The District Inspector of Schools approved the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.1970 while he approved the appointment of respondent No. 5 vide order dated 8.2.1971.

6. With reference to the date of order of approval of the District Inspector of Schools, petitioner has come up with a plea that he is the senior and is therefore entitled for the appointment as officiating Principal.

7. Respondent No. 5 on the other hand submits that approval granted in his favour on 8.2.1971 would relate back to the date of initial appointment i.e. 8.9.1970 and further since he has been paid annual increments and provided all benefits namely selection grade etc. with reference to the said appointment only i.e. 1.7.1970, he is senior to the petitioner.

8. The dispute of seniority between the parties was referred for adjudication under Judgment and Order of this Court dated 29.6.2006 passed in the writ petition No. 33501 of 2006 to the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur.

9. Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, by means of the order dated 11.8.2006 has held that the respondent No. 5 is senior to the petitioner with reference to his initial date of appointment i.e. 1.7.1970 as also on the ground that the seniority list published, from time to time in the institution, was never objected to by the petitioner. This order of the Joint Director of Education is under challenge in the present writ petition. Linked with the said dispute of seniority is the issue of appointment of officiating Principal of the institution.

10. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is based on completely non-consideration of the statutory provision with regard to appointment on the post of Lecturer in a recognized institution. Even if it is assumed that the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is correct and therefore Shri Riyasat Ali is senior to the petitioner, he can not be appointed on the post of Principal in an Intermediate College inasmuch as he has to his credit only a diploma of post graduation. Shri Riyasat Ali is not trained, therefore, is not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as per Appendix A to Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. Possessing of prescribed minimum qualification is a condition precedent for any appointment being made on the post of Principal under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, reliance has been placed upon Rule 5 of the U.P. Secondary Services Selection Board Rules, 1998.

11. Sri Shashi Nandan Sr. Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5 on the contrary contends that the petitioner never raised any objection to the seniority lists published from time to time and settled seniority cannot be permitted to be unsettled on the basis of new ground raised for the first time before this Court. With regards to the academic qualification possessed by Respondent No. 5, it is stated that no such issue was raised before the Regional Joint Director of Educatio