The court reaffirmed that Officiating Principals of state-funded institutions are entitled to salaries commensurate with their roles despite legislative changes, emphasizing established legal precedents. This entitlement exists until a regular appointment is made.

JUDGMENT :

(Order on Civil Misc. Leave to Appeal Application No. 01 of 2026 and Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. 02 of 2026 filed in Special Appeal Defective No. 174 of 2026)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. In absence of any serious objection, the present applications are allowed.

(Order on Special Appeal)

3. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the original petitioner- appellant, Sri Kartikey Saran, Additional Advocate General and Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Present intra Court appeals have arisen against the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.01.2026, Samit vs. State of U.P. and 2 others and 11 connected writ petitions , 2026:AHC:17253. By that order, the writ Court has disposed of the writ petitions filed by the original petitioners-appellants. In effect, the writ petitions had been filed seeking a direction on the respondent State Authorities for payment of salary commensurate to that payable to principal of different inter-colleges, covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government.

5. Primarily, in view of U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission Act), and U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission Rules'), the original petitioner/appellant have been found dis-entitled to receive salary commensurate to that of principal of Intermediate College, though it is an admitted case between the parties that original petitioners/appellants were officiating as principal at their respective intermediate colleges- all covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government. In doing that the writ Court has observed that three earlier decisions of coordinate benches in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan vs. District Inspector of Schools , 1980 0 UPLBEC 286, Narbdeshwar Misra vs. District Inspector of School, Deoria , 1982 0 UPLBEC 171 and Soloman Morar Jha vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others , 1985 UPLBEC 113 are no longer good law.

6. For ready reference, the facts pertaining to Writ -A No. 19255, Veeresh Chandra Mishra and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others are as follows. The original petitioner, Veeresh Chandra Mishra, was initially appointed as lecturer (Chemistry) by the Service Selection Board on 16.08.2001. He was allotted Swatantra Bharat Inter College, Surjawali Via Khurja, Bulandshahar vide order dated 16.10.2001. Against appointment letter dated 18.10.2001, he joined that institution. On 30.12.2022, the then principal of said the institution namely, Anil Kumar submitted his resignation. He handed over charge to the petitioner, who was the senior most lecturer working at the institution.

7. Thereafter, the signature of the petitioner was attested by the D.I.O.S, Bulandshahar on 13.1.2023. Since then, the petitioner has been officiating as principal of that institution and he has been discharging his duties in that capacity. However, he was not paid salary commensurate to the post of principal on which he has officiated. This led the petitioner to file the writ petition. It has been disposed of.

8. In some of the other petitions, slight difference of facts exists, inasmuch as some of the petitioners were being paid salary commensurate to their officiating as principal of their respective institutions. Upon enforcement of the Commission Act, that salary payment has been withheld.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of petitioners submissions have been first advanced by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the original petitioner Veeresh Chandra Mishra. He would submit