judgment

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant is a society running several educational institutions, one of which is a Mahila Mandal Higher Secondary School at Danaoli. The third respondent claims to be the only recognized Upper Division Teacher in the said school.

3. 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 non-governmental institutions nor providing grant for the posts that were filled up and the institution may do so and bear the cost of running the institution. The District Education Officer, however, suggested that the third respondent may be permitted to work as In-charge Principal.

4. The appellant accordingly posted the third respondent as In-charge Principal on 21.7.2004. Thereafter the appellant transferred and posted the fourth respondent as regular Principal of Higher Secondary School, Danaoli, vide order dated 3.8.2004. The fourth respondent was earlier working as Principal of the Higher Secondary School run by the appellant at Kherapati.

5. 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. There was no other prayer in the writ petition.

6. 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. 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. The present appeal is filed challenging the said order of the Division Bench.

7. Two subsequent developments have made it unnecessary to consider this appeal on merits. 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 no longer the 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. According to the third respondent, one Radhika Neema another Lecturer from one of the other institutions of the appellant is presently the In-charge Principal of the Danaoli School.

8. The second development is in regard to the grant in aid. Earlier, out of the 55 teaching staff of the Appellant, grant was being extended only in respect of two posts, that is the post of Principal and one post of Upper Division Teacher occupied by the third respondent. We are informed that on the retirement of Uma Gadvekar, the post of Principal also became a non-grant post. At present only the post occupied by third respondent as a recognized teacher is a post covered by the block grant. The fact that other teachers are not recognized does not mean that their appointments are illegal or irregular. It is stated that recognition and grant was linked and there is no need for recognition in regard to teachers appointed non-grant posts. The appellant claims that it has already written to the Department to stop the block grant which is being extended with reference to only one teaching post, s