G.P Mathur, J.:— The question which requires consideration here is whether a senior most teacher in the Lecturer's grade is entitled to be promoted as an ad-hoc Principal of the Institution if he does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the said post.

2. Shri Jiyut Prasad Yadav, who was the regular Principal of the Institution retired on 30.6.1999 after attaining the age of superannuation. The appellant Shamshul Zama, who holds a B. Sc. degree and a post-graduate diploma in Zoology, claimed that as he was the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade, he was entitled to be promoted as ad-hoc Principal of the Institution. Lalit Mohan Chaturvedi, respondent No. 4 refuted the claim of the appellant on the ground that as the appellant did not possess the prescribed minimum qualification, he could not be appointed as ad-hoc Principal. The D.I.O.S by his order dated 27.8.1999 directed the Committee of Management of the Institution to appoint respondent No. 4 as the ad-hoc Principal. The appellant preferred the writ challenging the aforesaid order but the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 25.5.2001

3. There is no dispute on facts. The appellant Shamshul Zama does not possess any post-graduate degree. He is B. Sc. and has done post-graduate diploma in Zoology and is working as lecturer in the institution since 1.7.1967 The respondent No. 4 has done M.A (Hindi) and M. Sc. (Mathematics) and is working as lecturer since 1971. The appellant having been appointed lecturer earlier is obviously senior to respondent No. 4 but he does not possess the essential qualification for the post of Principal.

4. Shri U.N Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 18 of U.P Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 provides for making ad-hoc appointment on the post of a teacher, which in view of Section 2 (k) also includes a Principal. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 deals with a teacher other than a Principal or Head Master and lays down that the senior most teacher in the certificate of teaching grade or in the trained graduate grade possessing prescribed qualification may be promoted in the trained graduate grade or in the lecturer's grade as the case may be. However, sub-section (4) of the same section only lays down that a vacancy on the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade. According to Shri Sharma, the expression “possessing prescribed qualifi-cations” being absent in sub-section (4), the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade has to be promoted as ad-hoc Principal irrespective of the fact whether he possesses the prescribed qualification or not. Shri Amarnath Tewari, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has submitted that unless a teacher in the lecturer's grade holds the prescribed qualification he cannot be promoted as ad-hoc Principal. He has further submitted that an identical question was considered by a Division Bench in Special Appeal no. 810 of 1993 (Dr. Desh Raj Singh v. Sri Pramod Kumar Jindal) decided on 26.8.1994 wherein, it was held that unless a person possesses the prescribed qualifications he cannot be appointed as ad-hoc Principal of the institution. Learned counsel has also urged that a similar view was recently taken by a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3236 of 2001 (Sri Nath Singh v. The Deputy Director of Education), which has been decided on 2.2.2001 and the Special Appeal No. 154 of 2001 preferred against the said judgment was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench on 20.2.2001

5. The U.P Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 has undergone several amendments since the decision of Special Appeal No. 810 of 1993 (Dr. Desh Raj Singh v. Pramod Jindal) but the language of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (3), and sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act has not undergone any change and consequently, the ratio of the aforesaid special appeal should have concluded the controversy. However, on account of a subsequent amendment in another provisions of the Act, the said decision has lost much of its efficacy. For holding that a person to be appointed as ad-hoc Principal of the institution he must possess the prescribed qualification, the Bench relied upon para 6 (a) of U.P Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 which lays down that a candidate sought to be appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment must fulfil the essential qualification laid down in Appendix A, referred to in the Regulation (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921. By Section 33-E which was inserted in U.P Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 by Act. No. 13 of 1999 with effect from 25.1.1999, the U.P Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 and all other Orders viz., (Second Order) 1981, (Third Order) 1982 and (Fourth Order) 1982 have been rescinded. In view of this amendment the entire basis on which the judgment was rendered in Special Appeal of Dr. Desh Raj Singh has disappeared as it is no longer on the statute book. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision cannot render much assistance in interpreting the provisions of the Act as they stand now.

6. In order to understand the real import of sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the 1982 Act, we must keep in our mind the relevant statutory provisions contained in the allied enactments. Sub-section (3) of Section 16-E of U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 reads as under:

“(3) No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations:

Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments”.

Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the same Act reads as under:

“1. The minimum qualifications for appointment as Head of Institution and Teachers in any recognized Institution whether by direct recruitment or otherwise, shall be as given in Appendix A”.

Para 2 of Appendix A provides that in reference to prescribed qualifications the word “trained” means post-graduate training qualification such as L.T, B.T, B. Ed., S.C or M. Ed. of any university or institution as specified in earlier para or any equivalent Degree or Diploma. The essential qualification for the post of Head of Institution in Appendix A are as under:

Essential Qualification

Head of the Institution

(1) “Trained M.A or M. Sc. or M. Com. or M. Sc. (Agrl.) or any equivalent post-graduate or any other degree which is awarded by corporate body specified in above mentioned para one and should have at least teaching experience of four years in classes 9 to 12 in any training institute or in any institution or University specified in above-mentioned para one or in any degree college affiliated to such University or institution, recognized by Board or any institution affiliated from Boards of other States or such other institutions whose examinations are recognized by the Board, or should the condition is also that he/she should not be below 30 years of age.

(2) First or second class post-graduate degree along with teaching experience of ten years in intermediate classes of any recognized institutions or third class post-graduate degree with teaching experience of fifteen years.

(3) Trained post-graduate diploma-holder in science. The condition is that he has passed this diploma course in first or second class and have efficiently worked for 15 or 20 years respectively after passing such diploma course.”

Rule 5 of U.P Secondary Education (Services Selection Board), Rules, 1998 reads as under:

“5 Academic qualifications— A candidate for appointment to a post of teacher must possess qualifications specified in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.”

7. Section 16-E (3) of U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 clearly provides that no person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or Teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations. U.P Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 and especially Section 16 thereof only provide for manner and method of selection of a teacher and it has neither any bearing nor it effects or curtails the operation of Sub-section (3) of Section 16-E of U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It therefore follows as a corollary that in absence of minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations a person cannot be appointed as Head of Institution or a Teacher.

8. The definition of “teacher” as given in Section 2 (k) of 1982 Act shows that it embraces within its purview every person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and includes a Principal or a Head Master. Rule 5 of U.P Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998 mandates in no uncertain terms that a candidate for appointment to a post of teacher must possess qualifications specified in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Therefore, even while making appointment under the 1982 Act, the holding of minimum qualification specified in Regulation (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations is sine qua non for a candidate. While making appointment of a teacher under the 1982 Act, the qualification prescribed by the U.P Intermediate Education Act namely, in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act have to be kept in mind and a candidate must meet the requirements of the said Regulation in order to become eligible and claim appointment as a teacher. A striking feature in the Rules deserve to be noticed here. Sub-rule (d) of Rule 2 defines “substantive appointment” and it means an appointment, not being an ad-hoc appointment, on the post of a teacher made in accordance with the provisions in the Act and the Rules made thereunder and includes the appointments regularised under Section 33-A or 33-B or 33-C. Therefore the rule making authority was fully conscious of the fact that an appointment of a teacher can either be a “substantive appointment” or an “ad-hoc appointment”. However, in Rule 5 the word “appointment” alone is used and it obviously means that the rule clearly embraces within its sweep all kinds of appointment whether substantive or an ad-hoc appointment. Therefore, if one takes into consideration all the relevant statutory provisions, there can be no escape from the conclusion that a person who does not possess the prescribed qualifications cannot be appointed as an ad-hoc Principal. It is the duty of the Court to take into consideration all the statutory provisions dealing with the subject and to give a harmonious construction of the same. Interpreting sub-section (4) of Section 18 in isolation will lead to inconsistency which must be avoided.

9. It will not be out of place to look to another angle of the problem. The dictionary meaning of the world “Principal” as given in Webstor's Third New International Dictionary is as under:

(i) a person who has controlling authority or is in a position to act independently;

(ii) one who has a leading position or takes the lead as a Chief or Head Master;

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer of various educational institutions;

(iv) one presiding as ruler, leader, superior or Lord.

In Chambers Dictionary, the meaning has been given as under:

(i) taking the first place, highest in rank, character or importance;

(ii) a principal person or thing;

(iii) a head, as of a school or college;

(iv) one who takes a leading part.

10. There can be no doubt that a Principal of a college has leading position and is superior to all other members of the staff being the Chief Executive Officer of the educational institution. All other teachers look for guidance to him. He has to motivate the students to devote to their studies and to build their character. He should be able to influence the other teachers and students of the institution by his knowledge, wisdom and character. It will look incongruous that an institution should be headed by a person who does not possess even the prescribed minimum qualification and his qualification is inferior to those who are working under him. Such a person can never command the respect of other teachers and the students in the institution. In fact these days it will be difficult to find a person working even in trained graduate scale who may not be holding a post-graduate degree.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Legislature has deliberately omitted the words “possessing prescribed qualification” in sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act as it is only a stop-gap arrangement for a short period. In our opinion, the contention raised has no substance as it omits to take into consideration the effect of allied enactment and the Rules which have a bearing on the subject. That apart, it is a fallacy to think that an ad-hoc appointment is only for a brief period. A huge bulk of litigation coming to this Court and our experience shows that an ad-hoc appointment of a Principal of an institution continues for years. The U.P Secondary Education Services Selection Board, is overworked and it takes years before a vacancy is advertised. The interviews are then held years after a lapse of long period after the vacancy had been notified. The ad-hoc Principal and quite often the Committee of Management of the institutions are too keen to see that the selection for a regular Principal is not made and any number of writ petitions are filed in this Court towards that end. Even after a person has been selected, effort is made that he may not be able to join the institution by creating all sorts of obstacles. The ad-hoc Principal is thus able to continue for years and more often than not he attains the age of superannuation while working as ad-hoc Principal. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that only a qualified person is appointed as an ad-hoc Principal.

12. So far as the qualification of the appellant is concerned, it is not in dispute that he doesn't possesses a post-graduate degree. He is a post-graduate diploma holder in science but not a “trained” one as this word “trained”, as already shown above, has a special meaning in Appendix A. Therefore, the appellant does not possess essential qualification for the post of Head of Institution and consequently he has no claim to be appointed as an ad-hoc Principal. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the D.I.O.S in asking the Committee of Management to appoint respondent No. 4 as ad-hoc Principal of the institution.

13. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the special appeal, which is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

Appeal Dismissed.

Education Act, 1921.