Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Pathak for respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The dispute in this case is as to who is entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Prin cipal in the Institution in question. Ac cording to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, (1994) 3 UPLBEC1551, or dinarily the senior most teacher in the Institution in question and hence accord ing to Radha Raizadas case the respon dent No. 2 is not entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Principal.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied on a decision of this Court in Satya Vir Singh v. DIOS Bulandshahar, 1995 (1) AWC 122 and he has emphasised on paragraphs 11 and 12 of this decision in which it has been held that once the senior most teacher has declined to accept the post he cannot claim the right to function as officiating Principal. In my opinion this decision is distinquishable. In the present case the respondent No. 2 had declined to accept the post of Principal in the year 1981. Satya Vir Singhs case cannot be in terpreted to mean that once a person has declined to officiate as ad hoc Principal and later on the vacancy