JUDGMENT:- (1.) Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated in the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution, may briefly be stated as follows:-The petitioner was appointed on 5th March, 2005 as Secretary of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India, being the respondent No. 1 herein. The President of the said Institute, being respondent No. 2 confirmed such appointment by letter dated 30th September, 2005. On 19th October, 2005, a Special Meeting of the Institute was held. It was resolved in such 227th Special Meeting of the Council that the petitioner would continue as Secretary and the action of the President confirming his appointment after completion of probation was ratified by the majority of the Members. The resolution adopted in the said meeting also mentions about the request of the President to the members that since the position of the Secretary of the Institute is the C.E.O., members may avoid writing against him and extend all support and co-operation to him for smooth functioning of the Institute. In its 242nd meeting held on 1st September, 2007, it was decided that the Secretarys function would be attending to the affairs of the Council, liaison with the Government and outside agencies including Foreign Bodies and other matters that may be delegated to him from time to time. It was further decided that the Secretary would be posted at the Delhi office for the better liaison with the Government and that the C.E.O. would be in charge of the total administration of the Institute and would be posted at Kolkata-HQ. (2.) It was also decided that to avoid any such problem, steps should be initiated well in advance to recruit suitable persons for the posts of both Secretary and C.E.O. Recruitment for the said posts was decided to be routed through some established recruitment firms. The President was authorized to discuss about this with the firms and take decision. President was further authorized to negotiate and finalize regarding allotment of the assignment of recruitment to one such reputed firm. The Council approved the following resolution:-Resolved that the President be and is hereby authorized by the Council to take immediate steps to discuss with firms like ABC Consultants or PWC or Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and engage one of them and assign them the task of selection of one person for the post of Secretary and another for the post of CEO. (3.) Respondent No.5 issued an advertisement in the Economic Times published on 25th September, 2007 inviting application for the post of Secretary located at Delhi. This was followed up by further resolution adopted in the 344th meeting of the Executive Committee of the Council. Petitioner came to learn that Sri A.R. Subramanian had been recommended by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and had been sought to be appointed to the post of Secretary at any point of time. No approval was taken for initiating such process of appointment to the post of another Secretary. (4.) The petitioner submitted a representation on 10th December, 2007 addressed to the respondent No. 2 ventilating therein all his grievances. Petitioner, as per Rule 130 of the 1CWAI Officers Service Rules, will retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years as on 31st May, 2009. The respondents cannot appoint any further Secretary when the petitioner is in service, but such steps have been taken only for the purpose of lowering down the status and dignity of the petitioner as Secretary of the Institute. (5.) Being aggrieved by such action on the part of the respondent authority, the petitioner approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. (6.) In response to this, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 ,11 and 12 contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition, wherein all the material allegations made by the writ petitioner had been denied. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the writ proceeding, it had been alleged that the anxiety, as ventilated, could have had no basis whatsoever. (7.) In course of hearing, attention of the Court was invited to Section 16 of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 as amended by Cost and Works Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006. Section 16 of the said Act relates to the Officers and employees, salary, allowances, etc. Section 16(1) clearly lays down that for the efficient performance of its duties, the Council shall:-(a) appoint a Secretary of the Council to perform such duties as may be prescribed; (b) appoint a Director (Discipline) to perform such functions as assigned to him under this Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder; (c) designate an officer of the Council or the Institute to carry out the administrative functions of the Institute as its chief executive. (8.) It follows from Section 16(2) of the said Act that the Council may also appoint such other officers and employees to the Council and the Institute as it considers necessary. (9.) There is no dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed as the Secretary and his appointment was duly confirmed. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is an evil design of a section of the Management in initiating such a move for appointment of Secretary and C.E.O. It was categorically submitted that such an organization can have only one Secretary and since the writ petitioner is functioning as a Secretary being duly appointed, there could be no justification whatsoever for taking steps for appointment of another Secretary or C.E.O. There is no doubt force in such submission. The fact, however, remains that nothing concrete could be placed before the Court so as to suggest that anything substantial has so far been done which could in effect create any disturbance in functioning of the writ petitioner as Secretary. It is not the grievance of the writ petitioner that anything has been done so far which impliedly attempts to clip the wings. The reason given by the respondent authorities for initiating steps for appointment of a Secretary and C.E.O. is otherwise. As claimed in the Affidavit-in-Opposition, taking into consideration the possible delay in appointing another person as Secretary after retirement of the writ petitioner, the authority concerned thought it fit to initiate steps for appointing a Secretary and C.E.O. Though the advertisement published in this regard clearly mentions about the post of Secretary and not Additional Secretary, the subsequent change of stand of the respondent authorities cannot justifiably be brushed aside under the carpet. It is not for this Court to get into controversy relating to the kind of relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. (10.) The backdrop of rivalry or the alleged strange relationship does not deserve to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy raised in the writ application. The fact, however, remains that the present writ petitioner is functioning as Secretary of the respondent No. 1. There is no material whatsoever to suggest that the respondents are trying to create any kind of inconvenience or humiliation in the functioning of the writ petitioner as Secretary. The fact, however, remains that the present writ petitioner is functioning as Secretary of the respondent No. 1. There is no material whatsoever to suggest that the respondents are trying to create any kind of inconvenience or humiliation in the functioning of the writ petitioner as Secretary. It may be that the anxiety for not keeping the post of Secretary vacant after his scheduled retirement on 31st May, 2009 may appear to be premature, But as it appears from the materials available on record that the respondent authorities subsequently changed its stand and sought to proceed with the appointment of an Additional Secretary. (11.) As referred to earlier, the Council certainly has the authority to appoint such other officers and employees, as it considers necessary. (12.) Learned Counsel for the respondents raised dispute regarding maintainability of the writ proceeding. Inviting attention of the Court to the averment made in Paragraph10 of the writ application, it was submitted that the decision arrived at in the 242nd meeting being not under challenge, the writ application is misconceived. (13.) It is the fact that such decision reportedly arrived at in the 242nd meeting has not been challenged, but that by itself cannot convert the present application into a misconceived one. (14.) But, as discussed earlier, the anxiety of the writ petitioner as ventilated is not only premature but may not have any sound rational basis. In absence of any material to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court indicating that there is any clear attempt on the part of the authorities in doing something which could even remotely infringe any right of the writ petitioner, constitutional or legal, I do not find any reason for entertaining the grievance. (15.) Accordingly, the present application being W.P. No. 1365 of 2007 fails and be dismissed. There is no order as to costs.