UP Education Act | Officiating Principal Of Aided Institution To Be Paid Salary Equal To Salary Of Regular Principal: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officiating principal of a grant in-aid institution must be paid a salary equal to that of a principal. However, it also held that holding the post of officiating principal for a long duration will not entitle them to any rights, other than the salary of the principal of the institution. Holding that U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act,...
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officiating principal of a grant in-aid institution must be paid a salary equal to that of a principal. However, it also held that holding the post of officiating principal for a long duration will not entitle them to any rights, other than the salary of the principal of the institution.
Holding that U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 would override the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 to the extent that there is no right to continue as officiating principal when regular principal has been appointed, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“Having recognized that a person is required to officiate as Principal of an intermediate college by way of necessity existing in law and he is required to perform higher and more onerous duties, than that of any other teacher at such institution, his right to receive higher salary commensurate to such duties discharged, may never be defeated.”
Petitioners-appellants were all officiating principals of various colleges who sought the same pay as the principal of that Intermediate College which was covered under the grant in-aid scheme of the State Government. Since the writ petitions were dismissed, the petitioners filed intra court appeals against the order of the Single Judge.
Petitioner- appellant contented that though UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 had been repealed by the Commission Act, the provision regarding ad-hoc principals had been saved by Sections 16 and 31 of the Commission Act as the conditions of service of teachers were to be regulated as per provisions given in the relevant Acts/Service Rules/Regulations/University Statues, as the case may be. Therefore, the law laid down by the High Court in this regard was good law.
The Court observed that in 1980s, the Allahabad High Court in Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan vs. District Inspector of Schools and Narbdeshwar Misra vs. District Inspector of School, Deoria had held that the officiation principals must be paid salary commensurate to that of a regular principal. In the later decision, the coordinate bench had held that if the vacancy on the post of principal continues for more than 30 days, then the officiating principal would be entitled to higher pay.
Rejecting the argument of the respondent that the law laid down by the High Court 40 years ago did not hold good, the Court held that the law laid down for grant-in-aid institutions had also been extended to minority institutions.
The Court observed,
“Thereafter, upon enforcement of the Board Act, that legal principle was statutorily recognized in the shape and form of section 18 of the said Act (extracted above). Read with rule 11(4) of the Rules framed thereunder, the only difference that emerged was on the own strength of Rule 11(4) of the Rules. Thus, the appointment of ad-hoc principal came to be initiated at the hands of the Committee of Management, in terms of Rule 11(1), read with Rule 11(2). Only in the event of failure on the part of Committee of Management, the D.I.O.S. would himself determine the vacancy at the institution.”
The Court observed that the Commission Act did not provide promotion on ad-hoc basis to the post of principal against a substantive vacancy but only provided for determination of vacancies, requisitions and selections for which procedure is prescribed under Rule 28. It noted that it was mandatory under the Rules to notify vacancies. If the Committee of Management failed to notify the vacancies, then it was upon the DIOS to do the same.
It held that in case of the petitioners, no vacancies were ever notified and the petitioners had continued to work against substantive vacancies. It also rejected the argument that only because the Commission Act did not provide for ad-hoc principals, the Legislature had done away with the concept.
“The need to provide for ad-hoc Principals arises not on the whims and fancies of the individual Committees of Management or on the desire of the senior most lecturers at such Institution. On the contrary, it is too fundamental to be doubted that no educational institution may function or exist without it's administrative head who is described as the Principal with respect to Intermediate Colleges and Headmaster at High Schools. His functions and duties are defined under the Intermediate Act.”
Observing that the conditions of services of ad-hoc/officiating principals are governed by the provisions of section 16G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 read with the Regulations, the Court held that it was impossible to accept that an Intermediate College can run without any person discharging functions of the Principal, in absence of a regular appointee.
Noting that the Commission Act is silent with regard to ad-hoc principal, the Court held that it was not inconsistent with the Intermediate Education Act.
“To that extent, the Commission Act is silent, it does not negate the provisions for appointment on ad-hoc/Officiating Principal at Intermediate College under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government. We are inclined to read the words 'regarding the selection of teachers' appearing in section 30 of the Commission Act restrictively- to only imply and refer to regular selections of such teachers. To that extent, the provisions of the Commission Act would override the provisions of the Intermediate Act. Consequently, to that extent, any person authorised to function as an Officiating Principal, may never claim after right to continue on such substantive post, after the appointment of a regular principal.”
The Court further held that the even if the Committee of Management fails to inform about the substantive vacancies, the DIOS is aware of them since they are the competent authority attesting the petitioners before allowing them to take over as officiating Principals.
“Therefore, the failure on the part of the Committee of Management to notify such vacancies, may not be looked at in isolation, to defeat the right of the original petitioners /appellants- to be paid higher salary. Equally, the D.I.O.S./authorized officers are to be blamed. Long time passed before vacancies may have been notified. Even then it remains further admitted to the respondent State, that no fresh regular appointments have yet been made- as may disentitle any of the petitioners/appellants, to continue to officiate as Principal at their respective Intermediate College. Therefore, the claim made in the writ petition was well founded in law and also in equity.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the special appeals and directed that the petitioners were entitled to continue as officiating Principals of their respective colleges till regular appointments were made and were also entitled to the pay commensurate to that of a regular principal of their institution.
Case Title: Veeresh Chandra Mishra And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 176
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 176