Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 5

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Samita – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others – Respondents
Writ – A No. 875 of 2024 with WRIT - A No. – 19185, 19255, 19267, 19682, 13849 & 19714 of 2025 and Writ – A No. 75, 373, 420, 796 & 605 of 2026
Decided On : 27-01-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Manish Tiwari, Saurabh Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

Ad-hoc principals are only entitled to the salary of their position following the fulfillment of specific preconditions under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Regulations under Chapters II - U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 - Section 18 - Entitlement of ad-hoc Principal's salary - Court held that ad-hoc principals cannot claim salary unless preconditions of notifying vacancy and tenure are met as per Section 18 of Act 1982 and mandates of Regulations. (Paras 1 to 28) (

Facts of the case:
The issues arose regarding the rights to salaries of ad-hoc Principals under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. Petitioners argued entitlement to salary as ad-hoc principals based on previous judgments. Respondents contended compliance with Section 18 was necessary for entitlement.) (

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that unless the conditions in Section 18 of the Act are met, ad-hoc promotees are not entitled to salary of the higher post.) (

Issues: Whether ad-hoc Principals are entitled to salaries despite non-fulfillment of prerequisites in Section 18 of Act 1982 and interpretation of previous case law.) (

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without notifying the vacancy and complying with eligibility criteria set out in Section 18, no ad-hoc Principal can claim salary, irrespective of previous judgments suggesting otherwise.) (

Result: All writ petitions disposed of with directions concerning salary payments based on compliance with Section 18, and any previous payments that violate this shall cease from the judgment's date.)

Table of Content
1. issues regarding ad-hoc appointments of principals. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's arguments about entitlement to salary. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. arguments regarding procedural recommendations. (Para 5 , 6)
4. overview of relevant legislative provisions. (Para 7)
5. legal principles regarding payment of salary to ad-hoc principals. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
6. summary of crucial cases affecting salary entitlement. (Para 9 , 10)
7. analysis of conditions necessary for ad-hoc promotions. (Para 13 , 14)
8. interpretation of specific regulations affecting salary. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
9. identifying potential issues with past judgments. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
10. final interpretation of salary entitlement under law. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
11. decision on the enforcement of ad-hoc salary payments. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. The issues for consideration before this Court in present bunch of writ petitions are as follows :-

(a) In a case where an ad-hoc vacancy of Principal or Head Master, as the case may be, of an institution is filled by promotion of senior most qualifying teacher in terms of provisions of Regulations described under Chapter-II of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short “Act of 1921”) read with Regulations under Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16- FF of Act of 1921, whether such ad-hoc Principal or Head Master would be entitled for salary of Principal or Head Master or it would still be governed by the provisions of Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (for short “Act of 1982”) i.e. such ad-hoc Principal or Head Master would be entitled for salary of regular Principal or Head Master, only after preconditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.

(b) Whether issue of payment of salary of post of Principal or Head Master, as the case may be, while working on promotion on Ad-hoc basis is already settled by the judgments passed by Division Benches of this Court in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan vs. DIOS, Budaun , 1980 UPLBEC 286; Narbdeshwar Misra vs. DIOS Deoria, 1982 UPLBEC 171 and Soloman Morar Jha vs. DIOS, Deoria, 1985 UPLBEC 113 (for short “judgments of 1980, 1982 and 1985”).

(c) Whether aforesaid judgments of 1980, 1982 and 1985 were considered in a Full Bench judgment of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others , (2014) 4 UPLBEC 2642 and despite said Full Bench was in regard to U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 would still govern the facts and circumstances of present case arisen out of Act of 1921 and regulations made therein and Act of 1982.

2. Arguments of Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Adarsh Shukla, Tanuj Shahi, Prashant Shukla, Anurag Shukla, Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned advocates for petitioners in all writ petitions are that issue has already been settled in above referred three judgments of 1980, 1982 and 1985 and judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh (supra) so much as that even preconditions prescribed in Section 18 of Act of 1982 are not complied with, still if the promotion is made on a temporary vacancy in the post of Principal or Head Master, such appointee shall be entitled for salary as Principal or Head Master, as the case may be, from the date he joined at such post in pursuance of said order of promotion. There is no scope for reconsideration of the issue.

3. Per contra, it is the argument of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by S\Sri J.N. Maurya, learned C.S.C., R.P. Dubey, learned Addl. C.S.C., Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel that judgments of Division Benches were of the year 1980, 1982 and 1985 and Section 18 of Act of 1982 was substituted by enactment of U.P. Act No. 5/2001 (w.e.f. 03.12.2000) i.e. subsequent to said judgments, therefore, this Court can still look, consider and interpret the effect of said Section 18 of Act of 1982