HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15262 of 2025 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Aditendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel. 2. Admittedly, petitioner was not qualified in terms of requisite qualification for the post of Principal. However, it appears that he was appointed as an Officiating Principal probably on the ground that his seniors have refused to take such responsibility. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.19451 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.2.2025 with a direction to the concerned District Inspector or Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner for payment of regular salary of Principal. 4. The representation so filed by the petitioner was considered by the District Inspector of Schools and vide order dated 28.6.2025, his claim was rejected, that admittedly he was not qualified for said post. For reference, relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter: "िनणर्य उपरोक्त तथ्यों व याची श्री डोरी लाल सैनी कायर्वाहक प्रधानाचायर् एवं संस्था प्रब्नधक द्वारा प्रस्तुत पत्रजातो एवं पत्रावली में उपलब्ध साक्ष्य/अिभलेखों की समीक्षा/िववेचना से अधोहस्ताक्षरी इस िनणर्य पर पहुचा है िक याची श्री डोरी लाल सैनी कायर्वाहक प्रधानाचायर् के पद पर िदनांक 21.09.2022 से अद्यतन कायर्रत है। याची द्वारा िनणर्य के प्रस्तर-12 में उिल्लिखत पत्र िदनांक – 16.01.2023 को उक्त यािचका में चुनौती नहीं दी गयी। इससे स्वतः ही स्पष्ट है िक उक्त आदेश आज भी प्रभावी है। उ०प्र०मा०िश०अिधिनयम-1921 के अध्याय-2 के िविनयम-1 के पिरिशष्ट-क के अनुसार याची श्री डोरी लाल सैनी पद िरक्त िदनोंक-21.09.2022 को लगभग 19 माह का Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dori Lal Saini .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) हाईस्कू ल कक्षाओं को पढ़ाये जाने का अनुभव जो िक न्यूनतम 04 वषर् से कम होने के कारण एवं उ०प्र०मा०िश०से०च० बोडर् अिधिनयम-1982 की धारा-18 में िनिहत प्रािवधानानुसार िवद्यालय में स०अ० श्रेणी की विरष्ठता सूची में ज्येष्ठतम अध्यापक न होने / सूची के क०स० -०7 पर कायर्रत होने िशक्षा िनदेशक (मा०) उ०प्र०, लखनऊ के पत्रांक संख्या / िशिवर/7229-314/2015-16 िदनोंक-25.08.2015 तथा उत्तर प्रदेश शासन िवधायी अनुभाग-1 के द्वारा िनगर्त शासनादेश सं० -415/79- िव०-2023-1 क 14-2023 लखनऊ िदनांक-21.08.2023 के द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश िशक्षा सेवा चयन आयोग अिधिनयम-2023 का गठन िकया गया है िजसके अध्याय-3 में पूवर् में उ०प्र०मा०िश०से०च०बोडर् अिधिनयम-1982 की धारा 18 में (प्रािवधािनत व्यवस्था) तदथर् प्रधानाचायर् / प्रधानाध्यापक के पद पर की जाने वाली तदथर् पदोन्नित को िवलुप्त कर िदये जाने के कारण याची श्री डोरी लाल सैनी को प्रधानाचायर् पद का वेतनमान िदया जाना िविधक रूप से उिचत प्रतीत नहीं होता है। याची श्री डोरी लाल सैनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन िदनोंक-17.03.2025 एवं 07.11.2024 को अस्वीकार करते हुये एतदद्वारा प्रकरण िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है। अतः मा० उ०न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योिजत यािचका संख्या-19451/2024 डोरी लाल सैनी बनाम उ०प्र०राज्य व अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनोंक-24.02.2025_का अनुपालन सुिनिश्चत िकया जाता है।" 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring a judgement passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr Sushila Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2023 (4) ADJ 274 (DB) submitted that since the petitioner's seniors have refused to take responsibility of officiating Principal, he was appointed as an Officiating Principal and considering 'doctrine of necessity', even if he was not qualified for said post and since he was the best suited person for post of Officiating Principal, therefore, salary for said post be paid to him. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid submissions and refers a communication dated 16.1.2023, that petitioner was well aware of the fact and since he was admittedly not qualified for post of Principal, therefore, he would not be granted salary for the said post and order dated 16.1.2023 is impugned herein at a belated stage only after his claim was rejected. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 8. It is not under much dispute that petitioner was not qualified for the post of Principal. 9. So far as 'principle of necessity' is concerned, it would also not be applicable in present case as petitioner being junior was the best choice and simply refusal on behalf of seniors of the petitioner for taking the responsibility of post of Principal, would not render present case a case of 'doctrine of necessity'. WRIA No. 15262 of 2025 2 10. In Dr Sushila (supra), petitioner therein was claiming appointment on the post of Officiating Principal being qualified and since respondent therein was not qualified, therefore, his claim was allowed and a direction was passed for consideration of appointment of petitioner as an Officiating Principal of the institution, therefore, it is distinguishable at this stage. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that now the petitioner is qualified to be appointed on the post of Principal of concerned institution, therefore, his prayer for payment of salary for the post of Principal can be considered w.e.f from the date he acquired requisite qualification. 12. Considering the above, without interfering with impugned order, it is observed that the petitioner is at liberty to approach concerned respondent, who will take a reasoned decision taking note of Dr Sushila (supra), and in case there is any legal impediment, same be communicated to the petitioner within a short period. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. October 10, 2025 SB WRIA No. 15262 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad