Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88429 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7353 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mumtaz Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,Ruchi Gupta,Vishwanath Mishra Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been accepted by Shri. R. K. Tiwari, learned counsel. 2. Under challenge is an order dated 21.04.2025, whereby respondent No. 4 has been appointed as an Officiating Principal of the institution. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on ad hoc basis in the institution in the year 1992 and his services were regularized in the year 2009. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 was also appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1989 and his services were regularized in the year 2017. 4. It is stated that the regularization of the petitioner’s service was done under Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission And Selection Boards Act, 19821 which has wrongly been mentioned in the order of regularization as Section 33-B. The services of the respondent No. 4, however, were confirmed under the provisions of Section 33-B of the Act, 1982. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various provisions of Section 33-B and 33-F of the Act, 1982 as well as the provisions of clause 2 and 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and stated that given the admitted fact that the institution in question came under grant-in-aid on 01.12.1998, the aforesaid provisions of the Act , 1921 are squarely applicable. With reference to the proviso to sub-clause 1 of clause 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations, it is contended that post of head of the institution is required to be filled by the senior-most qualified teacher in the highest grade in the institution. 6. It has further been stated with reference to clause 3(1)(b) of the Regulations that seniority is to be determined in a grade on the basis of the substantive appointment of teachers in that grade. 1 Act, 1982 7. It is further contended that the petitioner being substantively appointed by means of regularization with effect from the year 2009, he is senior to the respondent No. 4, who was appointed substantively by regularization in the year 2017. 8. Shri. R. K. Ojha, learned counsel, has referred to Annexure 4 to the writ petition to point out that the name of the respondent No. 4 stood at serial No. 13 of the list prepared therein whereas the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 29. He has further referred to the provisions of Section 33-B and Section 33-F to contend that it is the respondent No. 4, who is senior to the petitioner given his initial appointment being of the year 1989. He has however, in all fairness, admitted that the list appearing in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, is not a seniority list. He further submits that prior to receiving of grant-in-aid by the institution concerned with effect from 01.12.1998, the provisions of the Act, 1982 were not applicable. 9. Shri. R. P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has stated that given the fact that the dispute exists coupled with the fact that seniority has not been determined, the order of the DIOS dated 21.04.2025 be set aside and the matter be referred to the competent authority to take a decision after hearing the contesting parties. 10. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of the Court, the order of the DIOS, Deoria, dated 21.04.2025 that is impugned in the present writ petition, cannot stand. The impugned order does not reflect any consideration of seniority. The order is therefore, set aside. 11. The matter is remanded to the competent authority to take a decision as to who would be Officiating Principal after determining the seniority in accordance with law. 12. Needless to say, due opportunity of hearing will be afforded to all stakeholders. 13. Since, the order impugned has been set aside, it goes without saying that the respondent No. 4 will have no right to officiate as Principal of the Institution. 14. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Aditya Tripathi (Jayant Banerji, J.) 2 Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad