Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. Since no factual controversy is involved in the present writ petition, the same is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit.

2. The respondent No. 5 was appointed as an adhoc Principal in the institution managed by respondent No. 4. The said respondent reached the age of superannuation and the Committee of Management resolved to appoint the petitioner as an ad-hoc Principal. The committee of management forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for, approval. The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order directed the Committee of Management to permit respondent No. 5 to continue as an ad-hoc Principal till the end of the academic session, i.e., till 30.6.2008. The petitioner, being the senior most teacher and being entitled to be appointed as an ad-hoc Principal has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by two Division Bench judgments, namely, in the case of Raja Ram Chaudhary v. Satya Narain Gupta and others, 2003(2) ESC 956, and in the matter of Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(1) ESC 193, wherein it has been held that a teacher continuing till the end of the academic session is not entitled to continue as an adhoc Principal after attaining the age of superannuation. The benefit of continuing to avail the benefit of the academic session after attaining the age of superannuation is not applicable for the appointment on the post of ad-hoc Principal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 made a feeble attempt to distinguish the aforesaid judgments contending that the said judgments pertain to the post of Principal in the Degree College, in which the Rules and Regulations were different from that of the post of Principal in an Intermediate college.

4. In my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party is bereft of merit. Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 relates to the extension of service which reads as under :

“21. Superannuation age of Principal, Headmaster Teacher and other employees would be 60 years. If above said superannuation age of any Principal, Headmaster and Teacher falls on any date in between 2nd July and 30th June, except in the condition when he himself, before two months of the date of superannuation, furnishes in writing the information for not seeking extension of service, extension of service upto 30th June shall be deemed to be conferred on him so that after summer vacation, substitute can be arranged in the month of July. In addition to this, extension of service could be granted only in such special cases which may be decided by the State Government.

If date of superannuation of any clerk or fourth class employee falls in the middle of any month, his extension of service would be deemed to be given up to the last date of that month. But if the date of appointment of any employee falls on the first date of any month, he shall be retired on the last date of the preceding month.”

5. The said provision has been interpreted in the case of Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla (supra), in which the Court held—

“We have considered the submissions and perused the record. In so far as the preposition that when a teacher is continuing till the end of academic session after attaining the age of superannuation he is not entitled for any appointment on a post other than his substantive is well settled. After attaining the age of superannuation neither higher post can be conferred nor an incumbent can claim promotion on a higher post. The preposition will both apply for appointment on substantive basis or appointment on