S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The facts briefly stated for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: the petitioner is a teacher is S. Z. Vaghela High School, Khambhat, run by Cambay education Society. In the year 1981 the post of Principal was advertised to be filled by a scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, applied for the post in response to the said advertisement. The petitioner and Shri I. J. Bhatt, respondent No. 2, along with other candidates, appeared before the selection committee. The selection committee selected Shri I. J. Bhatt, respondent No. 2 herein, for the post of principal. The petitioner has come up with the case that respondent No. 2 was not holding the requisite qualification for the post. The selection of respondent No. 2 was put in challenge by the petitioner by filing applications No. 1 of 1982 and 25 of 1982 before the gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal. The Secondary Education Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 8-4-1983 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has carried his challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 2 to the post of principal further to this Court by filing special civil application No. 4056 of 1983. The aforesaid special civil application came to be allowed by this court by judgment dated 12-8-1994. The judgment of this Court in the aforesaid special civil application has been annexed to the present petition. ( 2 ) THE challenge to the selection of respondent No. 2 has been made inter alia on the ground that the selection committee which made the selection and recommended for his appointment was not properly constituted. As per Rule 64. 2 of the Grant in Aid Code as amended by the Government Resolution dated 15th February, 1979 and 26th November, 1979, the selection committee ought to have been consisted of five members. The tribunal, while deciding the application of the petitioner, has refused to examine the effect of the Government Resolutions aforesaid on the ground that the school was not party to the proceedings before the High Court. In the petition, reference to which has been made in para 10 of the judgment, the school managment took defence that it had no knowledge about the stay having been vacated by the High Court in July, 1981. In the petition, reference to which has been made in para 10 of the judgment, the school managment took defence that it had no knowledge about the stay having been vacated by the High Court in July, 1981. This court accepted the writ petition and the judgment of the Tribunal delivered on 18th october, 1983 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for being decided afresh on merits in accordance with law. ( 3 ) ON remand, the matter has been decided by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 5-5-1995, copy of which is filed at annexure-E to the writ petition at pg. 35-36. The judgment is in Gujarati, but I have taken translated version thereof from the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In para 5 of the judgment the Tribunal held that the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the post of Principal was not in accordance with law as the selection committee was not properly constituted, but taking into consideration the fact that respondent No. 2 has already worked on the post and he is due for retirement within a short period, his appointment was ordered to be regularised. It was further directed by the Tribunal that on retirement of respondent No. 2, the management shall make fresh recruitment to the post of Principal through a properly constituted committee, and at that time the case of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law. ( 4 ) IN this petition this Court issued rule on 22nd September, 1995, but declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioner. It has been brought to the notice of the court by the counsel for the parties that neither Tribunal nor this Court in earlier proceedings has granted any interim relief restraining respondent No. 2 from working on the post of Principal of the school. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows : respondent No. 2 attained the age of superannuation on 26th October, 1995. As per government Resolution applicable to teachers, he has retired on 31st October, 1995. No allegation whatsoever of malafides has been alleged against the management in making selection of respondent No. 2 on the post of Principal of the school. No other motives have been imputed against respondent No. 1 of making appointment of the respondent no. 2 on the post of Principal. No allegation whatsoever of malafides has been alleged against the management in making selection of respondent No. 2 on the post of Principal of the school. No other motives have been imputed against respondent No. 1 of making appointment of the respondent no. 2 on the post of Principal. Both the Tribunal as well as this Court in earlier writ petition did not find any illegality in the selection or motives of mala fides except that the committee who selected and recommended for appointment of respondent No. 2 was not properly constituted. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that respondent No. 2 is not in any manner responsible for the illegality or irregularity committed by the management in constitution of the selection committee. He is a bona fide person who applied for the post in response to advertisement and had been selected by the selection committee. Respondent No. 2 has already retired from service. In view of these facts on which there is no dispute among the parties, I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal where even after holding the appointment of respondent No. 2 to be irregular, ordered for his regularisation. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also very frankly submitted that in view of the subsequent development and the events which passed through after appointment of respondent No. 2 on the post of Principal, the petitioner no more insists on the prayer for quashing the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the post of Principal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Management is acting arbitrarily to deprive him of the chance of his selection to the post of Principal despite the specific observations made in his favour and contrary to what the learned Tribunal has observed in its judgment which is under challenge in this writ petition. The post is required to be filled up by a reserved class candidates i. e. Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe. It has been advertised to be filled up from general candidates with the object and purpose of defeating the claim of the petitioner to be selected as a reserved class candidate. The post is required to be filled up by a reserved class candidates i. e. Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe. It has been advertised to be filled up from general candidates with the object and purpose of defeating the claim of the petitioner to be selected as a reserved class candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted before this Court that he has already filed a writ petition challenging therein the decision of the management to fill up the said post from unreserved candidates, and the said petition is still pending before this Court. So far as the claims which have been made by the petitioner as aforesaid, those are not the subject matter of challenge in this petition and as such I do not consider it proper to decide these questions. It is a separate cause of action for which the petitioner has already been advised to file another petition and in that petition these matters will be decided and the Court will take into consideration ultimately the effect of the observations which have been made by the Tribunal in the last part of its order challenged in this writ petition and how far those observations have to be given effect to. But nevertheless the present is a case where because of the delay in disposal of the earlier writ petition he could not get effective decision on the question of legality of appointment on the post and his right to be appointed. Because of the passing of time, equity and other humanitarian considerations have come into play and the petitioner has made humanitarian approach in the matter and given up the challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 2 as he has already retired from service. This court can not be oblivious of these facts and I consider it to be a fit case in which the petitioner should be reasonably compensated for the costs which he has incurred in filing the application before the tribunal, the previous writ petition and the present petition. ( 7 ) IN the result though this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner on humanitarian consideration that respondent No. 2 has already retired from service the respondent No. 1 is directed to pay to the petitioner by way of cost of this litigation Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand ). Rule discharged. .