IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility for the appointment of a principal must be assessed as of the vacancy date, and subsequent qualifications can establish entitlement to the position.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-The instant intra-Court appeal arises out of the order and judgment of learned single Judge dated 15.12.2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') was dismissed. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the orders dated 25.9.2018 and 6.12.2019 passed by Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as officiating principal of an Intermediate College namely Soni Dhapa Khandelwal Balika Inter College, Mau. On the other hand, the appointment of respondent No. 5, Smt. Manju Rai (hereinafter referred to as 'the contesting respondent') was upheld.

2. The vacancy on the post of Principal came into existence upon retirement of Smt. Rizwana Bano on 31.3.2016. The Committee of Management of the institution recommended for appointment of the contesting respondent as the officiating Principal of the institution by resolution dated 22.3.2016. Pursuant thereto, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 20.4.2016 appointing the contesting respondent as officiating Principal of the institution. The objection of the petitioner against the resolution of the Committee of Management was turned down by observing that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed under Appendix I to Chapter II, Regulation I of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The contesting respondent was held to be the senior most teacher after the petitioner having the prescribed minimum qualification. The same view has been taken by the Joint Director of Education in the orders impugned in the writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as lecturer in Civics in the institution on 1.8.2012 in substantive capacity. On the other hand, the contesting respondent was appointed as lecturer, by promotion, on 27.5.2013. Both the petitioner and the contesting respondent were not having the prescribed minimum qualification for the post of Principal on the date of occurrence of vacancy. The petitioner had M. A. qualification but was not having B.Ed. degree, the training qualification, essential for the post. She also did not had the experience of four years of teaching Classes IX to XII as was required under law. The contesting respondent possessed M.A. B.Ed. qualification but was not having four years teaching experience as a lecturer. Consequently she was also not qualified for appointment on the post of Principal. However, the petitioner being senior amongst two in the lecturer grade was having a better claim for appointment as officiating Principal. In the alternative, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that she acquired B. Ed. qualification in June 2017 and also came to acquire four-year teaching experience by that time and thus became entitled for appointment as officiating Principal. However her claim was wrongly rejected by the orders impugned in the writ petition.

4. The learned single Judge held that the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as officiating Principal was rightly not accepted as she was not having B. Ed. degree on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The challenge advanced by the petitioner to the finding recorded in the order of the Joint Direction of Education that the contesting respondent was having requisite teaching experience as she had taught Classes IX to XII for more than 20 years was negated on the ground that no specific challenge was raised by the petitioner in the writ petition to the correctness of the finding recorded by the Joint Director of Education in this behalf. The plea that the petitioner had acquired eligibility subsequently was held to be not relevant as the petitioner did not had the prescribed qualification on the date of the vacancy.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant petitioner made the following submissions :

(a) the contesting respondent also did not had t