M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21-5-2004. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE appellant filed a writ petition praying for quashing the selection dated 3-8-96 made by u. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad for the. post of Principal in Krishak inter College, Thana Gaddi, District Jaunpur and other consequential relief. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case have been set out in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where it is necessary to deal with the submissions of the learned Counsel. ( 5 ) THE appellant was appointed as officiating Principal of the College by the resolution of the committee of Management dated 29-6-94 and his signature was attested by the DIOS vide order dated 13-7-94, which, has been the subject matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14984 of 1994 filed by one Raj Pal Singh. ( 6 ) THE Committee of Management notified the vacancy to the Commission through the DIOS in july, 1994 for making regular selection on the post of Principal. When no selection was made within 60 days the Committee of Management vide resolution dated 3-9-94 appointed the petitioner as ad hoc Principal and the DIOS by the order dated 2-3-95 granted approval to this ad hoc appointment. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that an ad hoc appointment of Principal is subject to regular selection by the commission. Hence when a regular selection is made by the Commission the ad hoc appointee has to go. ( 8 ) THE Commission fixed 26-6-96 for selection/interview for the post of Principal of the College and it sent notice to the two senior most teachers, being the appellant and respondent No. 5 calling them for the interview on 26-6-96. According to the appellant, he did not received any notice and therefore, could not appear for the interview. However, there is no dispute that the date for the interview was also notified in the well known Hindi Newspaper dainik Jagaranv the Commission proceeded to hold the interview and recommended Raj Pal Singh respondent no. According to the appellant, he did not received any notice and therefore, could not appear for the interview. However, there is no dispute that the date for the interview was also notified in the well known Hindi Newspaper dainik Jagaranv the Commission proceeded to hold the interview and recommended Raj Pal Singh respondent no. 5 (who was the senior most teacher in the institution) for appointment as Principal and his name was at serial No. 1 in the panel. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the selection was in breach of Rules 4 and 6 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission rules, 1983 since the appellant being one of the two senior most lecturer in the College was not called for the interview. ( 9 ) SRI B. P. Singh learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 Rajpal Singh however, submitted that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33455 of 1996, Bachchan Ram v. U. P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad and Ors. , was filed on behalf of the appellant by the Manager, challenging the selection dated 3-8-96 on the ground of non-intimation of the interview date to the appellant who was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in that writ petition and was subsequently transposed as petitioner No. 3. The said writ petition had been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 11-12-98 and hence the appellant was estopped from challenging the selection dated 3-8-96. ( 10 ) AFTER the dismissal of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 33455 of 1996 admittedly the appellant and the Committee of Management filed Special Leave Petition No. , 626 of 1999 before the supreme Court raising the same ground. The appellant was petitioner No. 3 in that S. L. P. A conditional interim order was passed by the Supreme Court on 29-6-99. After exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavit the Supreme Court by its order dated 25-11-99 dismissed the special Leave Petition as withdrawn. Sri B. P. Singh learned Counsel submitted that the present appellant has filed the SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of this Court dated. 11-12-98 which he subsequently withdrew and hence he cannot be permitted now to challenge the selection dated 3-8-96. Sri B. P. Singh learned Counsel submitted that the present appellant has filed the SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of this Court dated. 11-12-98 which he subsequently withdrew and hence he cannot be permitted now to challenge the selection dated 3-8-96. ( 11 ) SRI B. P. Singh learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 further submitted that the appellant had filed a Writ Petition No. 33857 of 1998 on 22-10-98 before this Court challenging the advertisement No. 1 of 1998, dated 12-8-98 even though the said Advertisement did not relate to the College. An interim order dated 23-10-98 was passed permitted the appellant to function as ad hoc Principal of the College and staying further proceedings in pursuance of the advertisement No. 1 of 1998. However the order of this Court dated 23-10-98 was stayed by a division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1012 of 1998 filed by respondent No. 5. He further submitted the when respondent No. 5 was not being given the charge of the Principal by the Committee of Management inspite of the Courts Order dated 11-12-98 and 23-11-98 passed in his favour the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by his order dated 23-12-98 gave charge of Principal to respondent No. 5 and attested his signatures on 28th/29th January, 1999. These two orders have not been challenged by the appellant. ( 12 ) SRI B. P. Singh learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the controversy raised in the present litigation has already been settled by the judgment dated 11-12-98 passed in writ Petition No. 33455 of 1996 which was filed by the Manager on behalf of Surendra Nath singh the appellant. He further submitted that notice of the date of interview was also given by publication in the newspaper dainik Jagran which is a well known Hindi newspaper in Uttar pradesh. He further submitted that notice of the date of interview was also given by publication in the newspaper dainik Jagran which is a well known Hindi newspaper in Uttar pradesh. ( 13 ) THE learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that the present appellant was respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition No. 33455 of 1996 and all the grounds which he had taken in the writ petition was challenging the impugned selection were also taken in the aforesaid Writ petition No. 33455 of 1996 which was dismissed by this Court on 11-12-98, in the said Writ petition No. 33455 of 1996 the Court by its order dated 15-10-96 had directed the petitioner to transpose the respondent No. 7 as petitioner No. 3 in the writ petition. The Court by its order dated 15-10-96 had directed the petitioner to serve the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 personally within four weeks. Hence the respondent No. 7 (the appellant in this appeal) became petitioner No. 3 in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 33455 of 1996, and this was in the knowledge of the present appellant as he was respresented by his Counsel in the aforesaid Writ No. 33455 of 1996. ( 14 ) AGAINST the judgment of this Court dated 11-12-98 in Writ Petition No. 33455 of 1996, special Leave Petition No. 626 of 1999 was filed in the Supreme Court (in which the present appellant was Petitioner No. 3) which was subsequently got dismissed as withdrawn. ( 15 ) IN our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ petition (out of which this special appeal anses) was not maintainable as it was barred by the principle of res-judicata and/or constructive res-judicata. In Writ Petition No. 33455 of 1996 the present appellant had been transposed as petitioner No. 3 to his knowledge. Hence he might and ought to have taken any additional ground which he is seeking to take now in the present litigation. The learned single Judge has referred to the relevant Supreme Court rulings in this connection and we need not repeat the same. In fact we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge should not have gone into the merits of the case at all and should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of res-judicata and/or constructive res- judicata without going into merits. In fact we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge should not have gone into the merits of the case at all and should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of res-judicata and/or constructive res- judicata without going into merits. ( 16 ) SRI T. P. Singh learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Supreme Court has continued the interim order dated 29-1-99 for a period of two weeks by its order dated 25-11-99 in petition to Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19035-19038/98. In our opinion the order of the Supreme Court dated 25-11-99 does not help the appellant at all. It has merely continued the interim order dated 29-1-99 for two weeks i. e. , till 9-12-99. However, this does not overcome the objection of res-judicata and/or constructive res-judicata which comes in the way of appellant. ( 17 ) THE appellant was only ad hoc Principal and it is well settled that an ad hoc Principal has no right to continue after regular selection by the U. P. secondary Education Service Commission. ( 18 ) THUS there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. . .