Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 9th September, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.6456/2012 preferred by the appellant.

2. When the appeal came up for admission on 18th March, 2014, counsel for the respondents No.1&2 i.e. the Administrator / Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Director of Education, GNCTD appeared on advance notice and the counsel for the contesting private respondents No.4, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 11 i.e. (i) Delhi Public School Society, (ii) Managing Committee, Delhi Public School (DPS), Mathura Road, (iii) Principal, Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, (iv) Mr. Ravi Vera Gupta, (v) Mr. M.M. Chopra and (vi) Mohd. Iqrar Hussain, being on caveat appeared and were granted time to file reply to the application for interim relief. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. The remaining respondents No.7&10 did not appear despite service of notice. We heard the counsels on the appeal itself on 3rd February, 2015 and reserved judgment.

3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the appellant impugning the appointment of the respondent No.11 Mohd. Iqrar Hussain as “re-employed” Principal of DPS, Mathura Road, New Delhi vide letter dated 17th May, 2010, on the ground of the same being in contravention of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The appellant also sought quashing of “illegal extension and retrospective regularisation granted” to the respondent No.11 vide order dated 30th May, 2012 of the Director of Education, GNCTD, on the ground of the same being based on incorrect interpretation of Notification dated 16th June, 2008.

4. The facts, to which the hearing of the appeal was confined and which are not in dispute, are as under:

(i) that the respondent No.11 was on 8th December, 1998 appointed as the Principal of the said School; the appellant, since 28th June, 1982 has been working as PGT, Chemistry in the said School;

(ii) that the respondent No.11 was due for superannuation on 30th June, 2010 on attaining the age of 60 years; he was however 're-employed' with effect from 1st July, 2010 for a period of two years i.e. till 30th June, 2012;

(iii) the respondent No.11, on 5th September, 2010, was conferred a National Award;

(iv) that as per the Notification dated 16th June, 2008 issued in exercise of the powers under Rule 110(3) of the Rules aforesaid, issuing policy directives for considering / granting extension to the services of the Principals and the Teachers of the Private Recognised Schools (as the subject School is), the services of the National Awardee Principals and Teachers shall, in the first instance, be extended upto three years and be further extendable upto two years; thus, extension of service for a National Awardee Principal or Teacher is for a maximum period of five years; such extension is however subject to the prior approval of the Lt. Governor, Delhi;

(v) that the Managing Committee of the School sought approval for and the Director of Education, GNCTD on 30th May, 2012 accorded approval for extension of service of respondent No.11 with effect from 1st July, 2012 for a period of three years in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification dated 16th June, 2008 and also “regularised” the period of re-employment with effect from 2nd June, 2010 to 30th June, 2012.

5. The only contention urged before us (though several other challenges were made before the learned Single Judge) is that the benefit of the Notification dated 16th June, 2008 could be available, if the National Award was conferred prior to the superannuation of the respondent No.11 and was not available, upon National Award being conferred during the period of re-employment, as the Principal. The counsel for the appellant contends that owing to the respondent No.11 having so been wrongly conferred the benefit of the Notification dated 16th June, 2008, the appellant