JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Petitioner is in a habit of filing writ petition after writ petitions. The history which is being quoted herein below qua successive writ petitions so filed will authenticate the statement so recorded. 3. Petitioner claims appointment on ad-basis as head-master of Purshottam Narain High School, Lalitpur (at the relevant time) with the retirement of the then headmaster of the institution, namely, Sri Ram Verma on 3rd October, 1989. Name of the petitioner was forwarded to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as one of the senior most teachers for being considered for the post of head-master. The Selection Board refused to issue any interview letter to the petitioner. 4. He, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19320 of 1990 (first writ petition) seeking a mandamus for his being interviewed for the process of selection. The writ petition is stated to have been decided on 12th September, 1990 directing the authorities to determine the seniority of the petitioner. 5. Petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35746 of 1990 (second writ petition) for a mandamus for his being permitted to participate in the process of interview and for no interference being placed in his working as the officiating principal. In the said writ petition, an order dated 10th October, 1990 was passed permitting the petitioner to participate in interview for regular selection and till regularly selected candidate was appointed, he was to function as officiating principal. The Selection Board vide order dated 5th December, 1991 is stated to have refused the candidature of the petitioner. 6. He, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5680 of 1991 (third writ petition) challenging the vires of Rules 4(1) and (2) of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Commission Rules. It is stated that in the said writ petition an interim order was passed permitting the Selection Board to continue with the interview but appointment on the post of principal was stayed. This writ petition is also stated to be pending. However, the petitioner alleged that he was not issued any interview letter. 7. He, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5681 of 1991 (fourth writ petition). This writ petition is also stated to be pending. However, the petitioner alleged that he was not issued any interview letter. 7. He, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5681 of 1991 (fourth writ petition). In the said writ petition an order was passed on 4th March, 1991 permitting the petitioner to be interviewed with the condition that the selection will be subject to the result of the writ petition. The said writ petition is also stated to be pending. 8. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it is stated that in between Ordinance No. 28 of 1991 was promulgated and under Section 330-A of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, services of the petitioner stood regularized, as head-master, yet the Selection Board declared the result of interview on the post of head-master of the institution. 9. He, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17983 of 1991 (fifth writ petition) seeking regularization. It is stated that an interim order which was granted in the said writ petition that the petitioner will function as principal of the institution till further orders, is still operative and the writ petition is pending. 10. The second writ petition filed by the petitioner being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35746 of 1990 (reference para 10 of the writ petition) was dismissed by this Court on 8th January, 1998, against which petitioner has filed Special Appeal No. 41 of 1998, which is stated to be pending before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein status quo has been directed on 11th January, 1998. It is, therefore, claimed that the petitioner has a right to function as principal of the institution in view of the aforesaid interim order and pendency of the special appeal. 11. It appears that in between one Reyazuddin was selected by the Selection Board for the post of Principal of the institution and he was also offered appointment. Thus despite obtaining an order of status quo petitioner actually did not function as principal nor he was paid salary of the said post. The aforesaid fact is established by filing a writ petition by Riyazuddin being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47370 of 1999, whereunder the District Inspector of Schools, despite his appointment, refused to pay salary to him. This writ petition is also stated to be pending. The aforesaid fact is established by filing a writ petition by Riyazuddin being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47370 of 1999, whereunder the District Inspector of Schools, despite his appointment, refused to pay salary to him. This writ petition is also stated to be pending. However, it is not in dispute that Riyazuddin continued to function as principal and was also paid his salary Riyazuddin continued to function as principal and was also paid his salary from the State exchequer as principal of Purshottam Narain High School, Lalitpur. The chapter stood closed at that stage. For last more than 12 years, petitioner did not function as officiating principal nor he was paid salary admissible to the post of principal at any point of time. Reference be had to the order of the Division Bench passed in Special Appeal No. 41 of 1998 dated 21st December, 1998, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 7th April, 1999. 12. The institution in question is stated to have been upgraded as an intermediate college. The petitioner claims to be possessed of the requisite qualifications and that became the principal of intermediate college automatically and is entitled to function as such, as Riyazuddin has retired on 30th June, 2008. The vacancy has been requisitioned to the Selection Board and has been notified under Advertisement No. 01 of 2008. In the meantime the petitioner was appointed as Ad-hoc principle against this vacancy. 13. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51214 of 2008 (sixth writ petition) challenging the advertisement itself. 14. The appointment of the petitioner ad hoc principal after retirement of Riyazuddin was subjected to challenge by Ram Das Verma by filing writ petition No. 53050 of 2009. 15. 13. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51214 of 2008 (sixth writ petition) challenging the advertisement itself. 14. The appointment of the petitioner ad hoc principal after retirement of Riyazuddin was subjected to challenge by Ram Das Verma by filing writ petition No. 53050 of 2009. 15. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were finally disposed of under a common judgment dated 12th January, 2010 and the Hon’ble Single Judge after noticing the various writ petitions filed by the present petition as well as Special Appeal No. 41 of 1998 as also the order of the Division Bench dated 21st December, 1998, which was since affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, disposed of the writ petition by providing that the issue of seniority between the petitioner and Ram Das for being appointed as officiating principal of the institution shall be adjudicated upon by the Regional Joint Director of Education in a time bound manner. This order of the Hon’ble Single Judge has become final and has not been subjected to challenge any further. The process of selection has been completed by the Selection Board in terms of the advertisement published and the petitioner was also invited to participate in the selection. However, he did not participate on the ground that he has already filed writ petition challenging the advertisement. The Selection Board has now completed the process and has notified the select panel. 16. Therefore, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition No. 14363 of 2010 (seventh writ petition) challenging the selection so made on the post of principal of the institution. 17. The only ground which has been urged before this Court for challenging the selection so made is that in view of Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982 petitioner stood regularized on the post of head master of higher secondary school at the relevant time and by operation of law, he becomes permanent principal of the intermediate college after its up-gradation. For the purpose, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 18th April, 2001 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14108 of 1991 (Chhotey Lal Gupta v. The State of U.P. and others). 18. For the purpose, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 18th April, 2001 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14108 of 1991 (Chhotey Lal Gupta v. The State of U.P. and others). 18. This Court is not required to examine the issue as to whether the petitioner was entitled for regularization under Section 33-A of Act, 1982 or not, inasmuch as already detailed above, various writ petitions and special appeal are said to be pending before this Court on the same plea. Suffice is to record that the attempts of the petitioner to install the selection process by challenging the advertisement has not succeed, as no stay order was granted in his favour. Meaning thereby that the process of selection is to be continued, Notification of the select panel is a logical consequence to the advisement so published. Petitioner was invited for interview and for participation in the selection, he has not chosen to do so. I am of the considered opinion that the relief, if any, qua claim of regularization should have been agitated in his pending writ petitions/special appeal. Successive writ petitions for the same relief based on same contention/ground are totally misplaced. Such kind of frivolous litigations cannot be approved by this Court. 19. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The said cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner within one month from today by way of bank draft with the Registrar General of this Court, who shall transmit the same in the account of High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, failing which the same shall be recovered by the District Magistrate, Lalitpur from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within one month thereafter. ————