JUDGMENT The Court: There will be an order in terms of (a) of the petition. 2. This is an application for stay of operation of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The only grievance of the appellant is that for the purpose of constituting a Selection Committee the Managing Committee in its resolution provided the persons, who would constitute the Selection Committee. But so far as the subject expert is concerned, the Managing Committee prepared a panel of three persons with a request to the Headmaster to approach those three persons one by one. The person who was number one in the panel has refused to act but number two of the panel agreed whereupon the Headmaster has requested number two to act as subject expert. This course of action has been challenged by the Secretary of the Managing Committee in the writ application stating that the Headmaster had no authority to appoint a subject expert. As a matter of fact the Headmaster has not exercised any power which is not expressly conferred by the Managing Committee in its resolution. 3. It is stated by Mr. Chakrabarty learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the Headmaster should have drawn the notice of such refusal by number one and acceptance by number two. This is an internal dispute between the Secretary and the Headmaster of the School and that the irregularity, if any, is of technical in nature. It has not resulted in any substant failure of justice nor is it a case of any prejudice to anyone else. The interview letter was also issued to the candidate. Now with regard to the constitution of the Selection Committee when the Managing Committee has selected a Selection Committee and left the matter for approach to subject expert by preparing a panel, we do not think that the Writ Court should interfere in such an internal dispute, which does not affect any of the rights of any parties. Further, we are of the view that none of the legal rights of the Secretary or the Managing Committee has been violated by the course of action adopted by the Headmaster and accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 4. The application for stay is dismissed. 5. Further, we are of the view that none of the legal rights of the Secretary or the Managing Committee has been violated by the course of action adopted by the Headmaster and accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 4. The application for stay is dismissed. 5. The view we have taken no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending. Hence the appeal is treated as on the day's list and is disposed of a accordingly. 6. All parties to act on a xerox signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking. Application for stay dismissed. Appeal disposed of.