Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Rama Kant Dubey and Sri Vinod Sinha, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and the Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Since no factual controversy is involved in the present writ petition, the present writ petition is being decided without calling for a counter affidavit.

2. It transpires, that the Principal of the institution retired and a substantive vacancy came into existence on 20.6.1998. One Ram Babu Jain was granted an appointment as an officiating Principal but subsequently he was placed under suspension. Consequently, the petitioner, by virtue of being the senior most lecturer, was appointed as an officiating Principal of the institution in June 1999 and, the petitioner functioned in that capacity till 28.10.2005, on which date, the petitioner submitted his resignation citing family stress and ill health. This resignation was duly accepted by the Authorized Controller and the petitioner was relieved from the post of officiating Principal.

3. Consequent upon the occurrence of the vacancy in the office of the Principal by the resignation of the petitioner, another lecturer of the institution was given the task of the officiating Principal of the institution, namely, Girish Chandra Jain, who functioned till he retired on 30.6.2007. As a consequence of the retirement of Girish Chandra Jain, the post of officiating Principal again became vacant. The Manager of the institution by an order dated 30.6.2007 directed the petitioner to assume charge as the officiating Principal since he was the senior most teacher in the institution. It is alleged that the petitioner took charge. On 7.7.2007, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order directing the management to issue directions to Aditya Prakash Gupta, respondent No. 5, to take charge as the officiating Principal of the Institution. The order dated 7.7.2007 as well as the earlier order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 29.6.2007 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31588 of 2007. Both the orders of the District Inspector of Schools were set aside by a judgment dated 17.7.2007 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. The Court further directed the Regional Joint Director of Education to hear both the parties including the committee of management and take a decision with regard to the entitlement of the parties on the post of officiating Principal. Based on the said directions of the Court, the impugned order was passed on 7.12.2007 by the Regional Joint Director of Education which was communicated by an order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the claim of the petitioner to function as an officiating Principal of the institution was rejected. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, has filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon the retirement of Girish Chandra Jain, the post of officiating Principal fell vacant again on 30.6.2007 and the said post was required to be filled up by a regular appointment. Since no names were recommended by the Board, the said post was required to be filled up by the senior most lecturer working in the institution. The learned counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner was the senior most lecturer and the petitioner was liable to be given the charge of the officiating Principal, the moment the vacancy arose. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dhanesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2004(3) ESC 1884, wherein the Court held that the right of the senior most teacher to function as the officiating Principal cannot be defeated on the ground that at an earlier point of time, he had expressed his inability to continue as the officiating Principal on account of his i