The appointment of an ad hoc Principal should ordinarily be made from amongst the senior most qualified teachers, but there may be exceptional circumstances, such as grave charges or serious physical disability, where the senior most teacher may be superseded. In such cases, the management must follow a fair and reasonable procedure, including providing a show cause notice and an opportunity to respond.

M.Katju

1. This case raises the question which has often come up before this Court as to who is to officiate as Principal of a High School or Intermediate College on the vacancy created by the death, retirement, removal, or resignation of a Principal until regular selection by the Secondary Education Commission under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The petitioner is admittedly the senior most Lecturer in the institution. The post of Principal fell vacant due to resignation of the former Principal, Devi Prasad Singh. The: vacancy was notified to the Commission, and in the meantime Satya Narain Tewari, being senior most Lecturer was appointed officiating Principal. Shri Tewari also retired, and the post of Principal again fell vacant- The petitioner has alleged that in the normal course he being the senior most lecturer should have been appointed Principal, but the Committee of Management by passed him and after inviting applications appointed respondent No. 3 as ad hoc Principal It is admitted that respondent no. 3 is junior to the petitioner. It is also admitted that the Commission has not yet selected a regular Principal The petitioner claims that he was wrongly not been appointed ad hoc Principal.

In this case on 22-11-90 Shri R. R. Singh, Advocate appeared for the Management and he was granted ten days time to file a counter affidavit, but as yet no counter affidavit has been filed by the Management. The only counter affidavit is of respondent No. 3, in which it has been alleged in para 6 that a selection was held for appointment as ad hoc Principal in which respondent Mo. 3 appeared, but not the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 was selected and he has been functioning as Principal since July, 1990.

3. In para 13 of the counter affidavit it has been alleged that it is wrong to claim that only the senior most lecturer can be appointed as ad hoc Principal. This is in fact the real question to be decided in this case.

4. There are a large number of decisions of this Court bearing on this controversy, the latest being the decision of A. N. Verma, J. dated 24-2-1992 in Writ Petition No. 4461 of 1991 Mobd. Nairn v. District Inspector of Schools, and others. The other decisions ate ;; Gauri Shanker Dube v. District Inspector of Schools, 1992 (1) UP LB EC 158, Shashi Bhushan Sharma v. Committee of Management, 1991 (2) ALR 398., Radhey Shiam Tewari v. Dy. Director, 1990 (2) UP LB EC 160, Charu Chandra Tewari v. D I O.S., 1990 (1) UP LB EC 980, Bandana Banerji v. Administrator, 1990 (1) UP LB EC 116, Maya Saxena v. Committee of Management, 1989 (1) UP LB EC 666, Ram- wati v. State, 1987 UP LB EC 290, Yogendra Prasad Chaturvedi v. Addl. Civil Judge, 1986 EC 44. THERE is also an unreported Judgment of a Division Bench, Ram Murti Singh v. District Inspector of Schools in Writ Petition No. 169 of 1987 decided on 7-12-87. I shall advert to some of these decisions at relevant places.

Yogendra Prasad Chaturvedi's case (supra) has relied mainly on section 18 (b) of the Act which provides that after the management has notified the vacancy of a teacher, which word includes Principal vide section 2 (k), and the Commission has failed to recommend a suitable candidate, then the management may appoint by recruitment or promotion a teacher on ad hoc basis from amongst qualified persons. This judgment has been followed by the Division Bench ruling in Ram Murti's case (supra), where the contention that the senior most teacher should necessarily be appointed has been repelled.

5. The other line of decision (the preponderent view) has been that the senior most teacher should toe appointed ad hoc Principal. These decisions have been referred to by A. N. Verma, J. in Mohd. Nain's cast (supra), and many of them are Division Bench decisions. Thus, in Charu Chandra Tiwari's case (supra) the Division Bench held that on a superficial reading of section 18 (1) (b) an impression may be crea