( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher under respondent No. 3, namely, Rohtagi A. V. Secondary School, Delhi. He joined the School on 17th July, 1950. The School is an aided school and the Government gives 95% of the grant.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition it has been contended that a post of Head Master in the Primary Branch of the School was created by the Education Department in the scale of Rs. 440-25-750 with effect from 1st August, 1981. It is averred that though the Education Department had nominated D. P. C. for selection to the said post of Head Master, the needful had not been done and the selection had not been made. The averment of the petitioner is that he was the senior-most Assistant Teacher who was eligible to be selected to the post of Head Master.

( 3 ) THE second grievance of the petitioner was that he was eligible for the grant of selection grade to the post of Assistant Teacher in the scale of Rs. 530-20-630 with effect from 1st February, 1978. In this connection it was alleged that the Education Department has granted this but despite representations the payment was not being made.

( 4 ) ANOTHER prayer in the writ petition was that 18 days pay had been illegally deducted from the salary of the petitioner and the respondent-School should be asked to pay the same. Particulars of the deductions so made are contained in the writ petition.

( 5 ) THE last contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission Report, the salary of the teachers was revised to the scale of Rs. 330-560. It is stated that the petitioner was senior to one Shri Raj Kishore who was also working in the same school, but in the revised scale of 330-560 the salary of Raj Kishore was fixed at Rs. 485 per month while the salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 440. The petitioner claims salary at the rate of Rs. 485 per month with effect from 1-1-1973 instead of salary at the rate of 440 per month.

( 6 ) AFTER the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner retired in September, 1984. It is, however, admitted that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has been allowed salary for 18 days, which had been deducted earlier and in addition thereto he has also been given the selection grade. These two reliefs have become infructuous.

( 7 ) THE petitioner has filed C. M. No. 891 of 1984 in which it has been contended that while paying him the salary for the month of October-September, 1983, the respondent-School has deducted salary payable to the petitioner for the period from 14th May, 1983 to 16th August, 1983. The salary for this period is alleged to have been deducted on the ground that the petitioner was absent and did not attend the school. According to the petitioner he was present in the school and he was not: allowed to mark his presence in the school register which was being maintained on the first floor but his presence could be verified from the attendance register of the class which was being taken by the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed that this Court should pass appropriate orders directing the release of the salary for this period.

( 8 ) TAKING up the petitioner s first contention with regard to his appointment as the Head Master, in my opinion no relief can he granted to the petitioner on this account. It is not in dispute that till today no one has been appointed as the Head Master of the School. Merely because a post has been created it does not give a right to a person, who may be eligible to be appointed as a Head Master, to ask for a writ of mandamus for directing the school to appoint a Head Master. This is more so when the petitioner has already retired and cannot be appointed to the said post. The right of the petitioner was only to be considered for the post of Head Master if the post was to be filled. This right of the petitioner has not been violated as the post has not been filled.

( 9 ) THE next contention of