Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri H.N. Pandey, for respondent No. 1, Sri A.K. Dwivedi for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel.

2. This is an special appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2008 by which order the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the direction that a lecturer appointed as Ad-hoc/Officiating Principal can continue as such only till he reaches the age of superannuation. Such a teacher cannot continue as Ad-hoc Principal subsequent to his date of superannuation, i.e., the period during which extension of service is granted in his favour. The appellant, who was respondent No. 5 to the writ petition, feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2008 has filed this appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case, which are necessary for deciding the issues raised in this appeal are : Gandhi Inter College, Maltari, district Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘institution’) is a recognised institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is also governed by the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 as well as the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer on 18th July, 1969 in the institution. The post of Principal of the institution fell vacant due to retirement of one Vishnu Yadav, who was working as regular Principal. The appellant, who was the seniormost Lecturer, was given charge as officiating Principal with effect from 1st July, 2006. The date of birth of the appellant being 7th July, 1945, he completed 62 years, i.e., the age of superannuation on 6th July, 2007. By virtue of Regulation 21 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the Act, the appellant was to continue till 30th June, 2008, i.e., till the end of academic session. An order dated 17th June, 2008 was passed by the State Government granting extension of two years’ service to the appellant he having been awarded a State award. The Committee of Management passed a resolution on 29th June, 2008 to the effect that the appellant, who was continuing till the end of academic session and is going to retire on 30th June, 2008, shall handover the charge of Principal to Sri Devendra Nath Dwivedi, respondent No. 1, who is next seniormost teacher in the institution. The Committee of Management also noticed that vide Government order dated 17th June, 2008 two years extension has been granted to the appellant, who during this period of extension shall work as Lecturer (Sociology).

4. The appellant/respondent No. 5 claims to have been working as officiating Principal since 1st July, 2006. The District Inspector of Schools asked for guidance from the Director of Education (Madhyamik) as to whether in consequence to the Government order dated 17th June, 2008, the appellant shall continue as ad-hoc Principal or not. The Director of Education wrote a letter dated 7th July, 2008 to the District Inspector of Schools stating that since the appellant has been working as ad-hoc Principal since 1st July, 2006 due to extension in service, he shall be given the same benefit which he was getting prior to extension.

5. The writ petition was filed by respondent No. 5 praying for quashing the order dated 7th July, 2008 and the consequential letter dated 11th July, 2008 issued by the District Inspector of Schools. The learned Single Judge relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (1) ESC 193 (All) (DB) and another judgment in the case of Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) ADJ 606, disposed of the writ petition by recording that the extension of 2 years service would enable the teacher concerned to continue as teacher only.

6. Dr. H.N. Tripat