JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 3.11.2006 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 5.
2. The respondent No. 5 has challenged the order passed by District Inspector of Schools dated 24.5.2006 by which order District Inspector of Schools directed that the appellant be given the charge of officiating Principal. The learned Single Judge in his judgment has noted the facts in details which need no repetition in our judgment.
3. A resolution was passed by the Committee of Management on 28.6.2003 appointing respondent No. 5 as officiating Principal. The said resolution was approved and respondent No. 5 started functioning as officiating Principal on 1.7.2003. One teacher who has earlier declined the post of officiating Principal Shri P.N.Mishra filed a writ petition claiming that although he had earlier declined but now he be given charge for the post of Principal. One more relevant facts to be noticed is that the appellant had retired on 30.6.2003 after attaining the age of 60 years, being a national awardee his claim for extension for a further period of two years was forwarded to the State Government which remain pending till September 2003. In September 2003 a decision was taken to give extension of two more years to the appellant. The date of the birth of the appellant is 6.7.1942 and even after extension of age of retirement from 60 to 62 years has attained 64 years on 5.7.2006. After an order of this Court dated 17.4.2006 the respondents have considered the claim of the appellant-respondent No. 5 and one Pratap Narain Mishra who had earlier declined to accept the post. The District Inspector of Schools took the view that appellant being senior to respondent No. 5, the approval earlier granted in favour of respondent No. 5 be cancelled and charge be given to the appellant. The said order was challenged which has been quashed by learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment. Basically the two reasons have been given by learned Single Judge in deciding against the appellant. Firstly, the appellant who is continuing upto 30.6.2007 by virtue of Regulation 21 Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act availing the session's benefit is not entitled to work as officiating Principle, his substantive post being of Lecturer. Secondly, when respondent No. 5 was resolved to be appointed as Principal on 28.6.2003, the appellant had already attaining the age of superannuation on 5.7.2002 and was not even available for consideration, hence there was no error in the appointment given to respondent No. 5 with effect from 1.7.2003.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant challenging the order contended that the appellant is entitled to continue as officiating Principal till 30.6.2007 and the judgments relied by learned Single Judge were not applicable. He contended that Division Bench judgment relied by learned Single Judge were the judgments pertaining to the Principal of Degree College which are not applicable. He further contends that Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2003(2) E.S.C. 956 Raja Ram Chaudhary v. Satya Narain Gupta although was a case pertaining to an Intermediate College but having been relied on the decision pertaining to Degree College is not a good law and is not applicable in the present case. With regard to another Division Bench judgment reported in 2000 (1) E.S.C. 645 Committee of Management, Jagdish Saran Rajvansi Kanya Inter College and Anr. v. Joint Director of Education, he submits that the said case laid down that during the period when teachers is availing the benefit of session after attaining superannuation he is not entitled for being given in regular appointment on the basis of recommendation of Commission which judgment has no application in the present case.
5. Shri S.P. Pandey, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent No. 5 was rightly appointed as Principal which order need no interference by the District Inspector of Schools. He submits that learned Single Judge has relied on both the reasons for upholding the claim of respondent No. 5. He further submits that learned Single Judge also observed that at the time of passing of the order dated 24.5.2006 the appellant had not even worked for a single day as officiating Principal.
6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. In so far as the preposition that when a teacher is continuing till the end of academic session after attaining the age of superannuation he is not entitled for any appointment on a post other than his substantive is well settled. After attaining the age of superannuation neither higher post can be conferred nor a incumbent can claim promotion on a higher post. This preposition will both apply for appointment on substantive basis or appointment on ad hoc basis. The adhoc appointment under Section 18 of the UP Act No. 5 of 1982 is the appointment as a Principal on a higher post in a different grade. During the period a person is continuing to avail the benefit of academic session after attaining the age of superannuation he is not entitled for appointment even on ad hoc basis. The said preposition finds full support from Division Bench judgments reported in 2000 (1) E.S.C. 645 Committee of Management, Jagdish Saran Rajvansi Kanya Inter College and Anr. v. Joint Director of Education 2003(2) E.S.C. Raja Ram Chaudhary v. Satya Narain Gupta and Ors. and Division Bench Judgment of R.C. Gupta (Dr.) v. State of U.P and Ors. (2002) 1 UPLBEC 767.
7. From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that with effect from 1.7.2003 it was the respondent No. 5 who was working as officiating Principal whose appointment vide resolution dated 28.6.2003 was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. In the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge it has been held that till passing of the order dated 24.5.2006 the appellant had not worked as a Principal, on 1.7.2003 when the respondent No. 5 took over as officiating Principal the appellant was no where in picture. He had already retired and his claim for extension was pending consideration. The respondent No. 5 has been through out continuing as officiating Principal.
8. The District Inspector of Schools passed the order dated 24.5.2006 on the direction passed in the writ petition No. 63512 of 2005 which writ petition was filed against an order of District Inspector of Schools directing to give charge to Pratap Narain Mishra who has refused earlier to act as Principal.
9. We further add that the purpose and object of Regulation 21 Chapter III is to protect studies of students from disruption during academic session and it is for the benefit of the students during academic calendar of the year. By giving a persuasive interpretation of the said clause, it is amply clear that the said protection is basically for the benefit of the students and the academic calendar of the institution and does not give any vested right to a teacher to claim a promotion.
10. Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Counsel has also stated that he had filed the writ petition challenging the decision to give charge to Pratap Narain Mishra and his writ petition was also disposed of. May as it be, there being no infirmity in the appointment of respondent No. 5 on 28.6.2003 and in the impugned order it has also not been found that there was any infirmity of respondent No. 5 as officiating Principal, the decision of the District Inspector of Schools at this stage to direct the giving of charge to the appellant on 24.5.2006 could not be sustained and more so when the appellant was attaining the age of 64 years on 5.7.2006. The order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order dated 24.5.2006 is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.