By the Court.—This intra-Court appeal arises out of the judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge whereby the appellant’s writ petition has been dismissed and it has been held that the process of appointment of the respondent No. 11/Dr. Krishna Kant Yadav for being appointed as a Principal in the Lucknow Montessori Inter College, Purana Qila, Lucknow by way of transfer under Regulations 55 to 61 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 can be undertaken provided he fulfills the conditions of the aforesaid Regulations. The post has not yet been advertised by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board for being filled up by direct recruitment.

2. The appellant had challenged the letter dated 11.7.2016 issued by the Joint Director of Education, VI Region, Lucknow, whereby he had called upon the District Inspector of Schools to take further action in processing the appointment of the respondent No. 11 by way of transfer on the basis of the documents received, and also prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 18.6.2016 of the respondent No. 10 Committee of Management as well as the No Objection of the Committee dated 21.6.2016.

The appellant relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prashant Kumar Katiyar v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ESC 221, had urged before the learned Single Judge that once the District Inspector of Schools had taken the steps for requisitioning the post to be filled up by direct recruitment, then this amounted to a determination of vacancy to be filled up by direct recruitment which could not be reversed by the Committee of Management by resorting to fill-up the post by way of transfer under the aforesaid Regulations. It is for this reason learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the Joint Director of Education had committed an error by calling upon for the documents vide letter dated 11.7.2016 for processing the appointment by way of transfer of the respondent No. 11.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Committee of Management of a recognized institution is possessed of the discretion to decide and choose the mode/process of direct recruitment as enumerated under Section 16 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 for appointing a Principal and since the said discretion is available before the advertisement is published by the Board, then the same can be gone into and the competent authority cannot be prevented from assessing the candidature of a person to be appointed by way of transfer.

4. Dr. L. P. Misra, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid conclusion of the learned Single Judge is based on an incorrect inference drawn of the ratio of the Full Bench decision in the case of Prashant Kumar Katiyar (supra) and the Committee of Management could not have undertaken the process of appointment by way of transfer once the District Inspector of Schools had taken the step of filling up of the post by selection and direct recruitment through the Board vide letters dated 7.5.2016 and 25.5.2016. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge having not correctly appreciated the ratio of the Full Bench has arrived at an incorrect conclusion, inasmuch the Committee of Management has no right to proceed to take a decision in the given circumstances for appointment by way of transfer. Firstly, it is in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, particularly Rules 10, 11 and 12 as the Committee of Management had overstepped its authority and secondly, the respondent No. 11 cannot claim any such right of appointment.

5. It may be placed on record that admittedly, the post has not yet been advertised and secondly, the process of the claim of the respondent No. 11 has not attained any finality as no final decision by the competent authority has been taken to give effect to the proposed transfer of the respon