Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—By means of Special Appeal No. 1987 of 2009 (Surendra Prasad Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and others) and Special Appeal No. 1991 of 2009 (Abu Mohd. Khan v. State of U.P. and others), the matter has been referred to a larger Bench to decide the following question :

“Whether a teacher of Intermediate College who has already been appointed as officiating principal of the Institution by virtue of his seniority on attaining the age of superannuation in the extended period of his service shall continue as officiating principal or simply as a teacher?”

2. The Bench has been accordingly formed and carefully heard all the parties to come to an appropriate conclusion.

3. Admittedly, Regulation 21 of Chapter III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is relevant for due consideration herein. The same is quoted herein below :

“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 up to 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.”

4. From the plain reading of the regulation, it appears to us that a vested right is affirmed taking in account the contingency, which become integrated part and parcel of the regulation. Such contingency arose for the benefit of the Institution, shifting of Head of the institution in the mid-session obviously affect the interest of the students. Students cannot impart their education by their own accord, hence, there is necessity of continuation of the teachers too. Therefore, they are the beneficiaries provided retirement age falls within the prescribed period. If any contingency is made under the law to supplement the vested right, it creates enforceable legal right by the fiction.

5. Relying upon earlier judgment in 1979 (4) SCC 204 (K.S. Dharmadatan v. Central Govt. and others) Supreme Court held that a legal fiction must be limited to the purposes for which it has been created and cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field. A legal fiction is adopted in law for a limited and definite purpose only and there is no justification for extending it beyond the purpose for which the legislature adopted. According to us, the legal fiction under Regulation 21 is neither beyond its legitimate field nor beyond the purpose for which the legislature adopted. It is a natural consequence. In this case, there is no departure from such settled principle.

6. It is further important to say that there is no dispute with regard to the extension of service of regular Principal or Headmaster who’s age of superannuation falls within such period. He or she will be allowed to continue till the end of the academic session, i.e., upto 30th June of the relevant year. Hence, it is automatic unlike other law or laws. A regular Principal or Headmaster will get all the retiral benefits for the post of such Principal or Headmaster, if his services are extended and ended upto 30th June of the respective year. As a result whereof, the contingency, if any, cannot be held to be contingency at all, but a part of vested right by the legal fiction. By the resolution not only law is introduced, but implemente