The third respondent being aggrieved by the posting of fourth respondent as the Principal by order dated 3.8.2004 filed Writ Petition No.291 of 2005 seeking the following two reliefs a to quash the order dated 3.8.2004 appointing the fourth respondent as the Principal and b to direct the appellant to appoint her as the In charge Principal of the School.
On the retirement of an earlier Principal of the School Uma Gadvekar , the appellant by letter dated 29.6.2004, sought a clarification from the District Education Officer, as to whether the third respondent being the senior most teacher amongst the recognized staff should be appointed to the post of Principal.
The District Education Officer sent a reply on 20.7.2004 stating that after 4.1.2000 the State Government was neither filling up the vacant posts in number governmental institutions number providing grant for the posts that were filled up and the institution may do so and bear the companyt of running the institution.
A learned Single Judge of the MP High Court allowed the petition by order dated 10.2.2006 and quashed the order dated 3.8.2004 appointing the fourth respondent as Principal of the Danaoli School.
The District Education Officer, however, suggested that the third respondent may be permitted to work as In charge Principal.
It is stated that thereafter one Ajay Upadhya, a Lecturer working in an other institution run by the appellant, was transferred and posted as the Principal of the Danaoli School and he has also left the service of the appellant.
Thereafter the appellant transferred and posted the fourth respondent as regular Principal of Higher Secondary School, Danaoli, vide order dated 3.8.2004.
He also directed that till a regular appointment was made to the post of Principal, the third respondent may be permitted to serve as In charge Principal.
The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated 30.8.2006.
There was numberother prayer in the writ petition.
The first is that the fourth respondent who was appointed as Principal by the appellant and whose appointment was quashed by the High Court has left the service of the appellant and is numberlonger the Principal.
The appellant accordingly posted the third respondent as In charge Principal on 21.7.2004.
The third respondent claims to be the only recognized Upper Division Teacher in the said school.
The fourth respondent was earlier working as Principal of the Higher Secondary School run by the appellant at Kherapati.
The appellant is a society running several educational institutions, one of which is a Mahila Mandal Higher Secondary School at Danaoli.
The present appeal is filed challenging the said order of the Division Bench.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Two subsequent developments have made it unnecessary to companysider this appeal on merits.
Leave granted.
