Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.7.1999, dismissing the writ petition No. 7801 of 1989 of the Petitioner-Appellant, the present appeal under the Rules of the Court has been preferred.

2. In brief, the case of the Petitioner-Appellant is that she was appointed as Teacher (TGT Grade) on 1.7.1965, and in PGT Grade i.e. Lecturer’s grade on 11.8.1980, in Kanya Vedic Inter College, Ghaziabad (in short ‘College’). The erstwhile Principal Smt. Punya Kirti Sharma on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.6.1988 resulting in a substantive vacancy on the post of Principal in the College. It appears that some of the next senior most teachers namely Smt. Gayatri Bhatnagar, Urmila Goel and Swarn Lata Jain, declined to officiate as Principal. By order dated 29.6.1988, the Manager of the College directed the Petitioner-Appellant to take charge of the office of officiating Principal with effect from 1.7.1988. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner-Appellant took over charge of the office of officiating Principal on 1.7.1988. The Manager vide letter dated 26.7.1988 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) informed the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools, Meerut (in short ‘RIGS’) about the retirement of erstwhile Principal on 30.6.1988 and that the charge has been taken over by the Petitioner-Appellant. This letter of the Manager did not mention that the charge handed over to the Petitioner-Appellant, was as officiating Principal or otherwise but only mentions about the factum of handing over charge to the Petitioner-Appellant. Further the Petitioner-Appellant, acting as Principal of the College, vide letter dated 6.8.1988, herself, informed the Manager, Central Bank of India, Ghaziabad that now the College account shall be operated by her in place of the erstwhile Principal. Subsequently, RIGS directed the management vide order dated 29.3.1989 to permit senior most teacher to function as officiating Principal of the College and also conveyed her disapproval of Petitioner-Appellant’s functioning as Principal. It is this letter dated 29.3.1989, whereagainst the Petitioner-Appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition seeking following reliefs :

(1) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/order dated 29.3.1989 (Annexure-IV).

(2) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to let the petitioner to continue to function as principal so long as a regular appointment is not made by the Secondary Education Services Commission.

(3) A writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(4) Award heavy costs of the petition to the petitioner.

3. In the meanwhile, it appears that RIGS passed two more orders dated 17th April 1989 and 28th April, 1989 directing the Manager to promote respondent No. 3, the senior most teacher, as officiating principal and to send salary bills under her signatures.

4. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed following interim order dated 12.5.1989 :

“Meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 29th March, 1989 of respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued as Acting Principal of the College and paid her salary till a regular selected candidate by the Commission becomes available for appointment."

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, Petitioner-Appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. seeking addition of certain grounds and one prayer as 1(a) in the writ petition, whereby she sought writ of certiorari quashing RIGS’s orders dated 17.4.1989 and 28.4.1989. This Court on 3rd May, 1994 passed an order on the said application directing it to be listed with record but, thereafter, it appears that the Petitioner-Appellant did not press this application, since no order allowing the aforesaid application has ever been passed. Hence, the said prayer has never been made part and