Judgment Surinder Singh, J: 1. By means of the present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought mainly the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned notification dated 18.4.2011, Annexure P-9 may kindly be quashed and set-aside; and (ii) That respondent No.1 may be directed to consider the petitioner for giving additional charge of the post of Principal for adhoc appointment/ for regular promotion as Principal in accordance with Rules forthwith, with all consequential benefits.” 2. The facts in brief can be stated thus. The petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Professor (Dentistry) in the State Government Dental College, Shimla and joined the said post on 28th June, 1995. The 2nd respondent was promoted alongwith others as the Assistant Professor on adhoc basis in the respective departments till further orders with a rider that this would not confer any right of continuation, regularization, promotion etc. on them. (ii)On 16.2.1999, the State Government issued notification promoting the petitioner alongwith 2nd respondent and others in the three tier system as Associate Professors (Dentistry) that too on adhoc basis, placing the petitioner junior to private respondent. She made a representation to the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, though she had joined the post on 16.2.1999, which was accepted on 24.11.1999 and she was placed senior to the above adhoc promotees and was redesignated as Professor (Periodontics) and joined this post on 24.11.1999 (Annexure S-4). The said re-designation/ appointment was subject to the rider that it shall not confer any right of continuation/ regularization/ seniority etc. in service. (iii)On 22.11.1999, “The Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Services Rules, 1999” were notified which repealed the H.P. Medical Education Rules, 1995. These Rules provided for 8 posts of lecturers (Dentistry), 12 posts of Assistant Professors (50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment), one post of Associate Professor (Dentistry) and 10 posts of Professor (Dentistry). The first amendment was carried out on 4.3.2000, against which Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj, the husband of the petitioner, applied for the post and got selected but before he could join, the State Government took a decision to safeguard the interest of 2nd respondent and other doctors promoted with him, who had been taken in service in dire need and to absorb them with retrospective effect. Yogesh Bhardwaj, the husband of the petitioner, applied for the post and got selected but before he could join, the State Government took a decision to safeguard the interest of 2nd respondent and other doctors promoted with him, who had been taken in service in dire need and to absorb them with retrospective effect. Thus, Rule 20-A in 1999 Rules was notified on 9.3.2001, absorbing them in the Dental College in the public interest with retrospective effect, after taking their option. The 2nd respondent got finally selected in the initial cadre of Lecturer in the Dental College and he alongwith other promotees was deemed to have been appointed to the service as Assistant Professor (Dentistry). (iv)Feeling aggrieved, again the petitioner made a representation to the Secretary (Health) apprehending that this amendment might affect her future prospectus and the respondents could be placed senior to her. In the meantime, she also filed an O.A. No.550 /2002 in April, 2002 before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to this Court and was finally disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 31st July, 2009 vide a detailed judgment (Annexure R-2/A) as the representation already made by the petitioner was accepted by the Secretary (Health) and she was shown to be senior-most Professor in the Dental College and ranked senior to the private respondent and others. In view of this, no relief was granted to the petitioner and her petition was dismissed. Against the said decision, review petition in this Court and SLP in the Supreme Court were filed by her, which were dismissed. (v) Further vide notification dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P-1), the HP Medical Education (Dental) Services Rules, 2006 were notified. It provided that the post of Principal would be a selection post, to be filled in 100% by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment or on contract basis. (vi)The petitioner was promoted as Professor (Periodontics) vide notification dated 29.1.2007 (Annexure P-2), on regular basis and further vide notification dated 7.4.2007 (Annexure P-3), the private respondent amongst others was promoted as Professor. (vii)Vide notification dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was given the charge of the post of Principal, Government Dental College, Shimla in addition to her own duties without any extra remuneration w.e.f. 1.1.2008 in the public interest till further orders after the retirement of Dr. N.C. Rao. (vii)Vide notification dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was given the charge of the post of Principal, Government Dental College, Shimla in addition to her own duties without any extra remuneration w.e.f. 1.1.2008 in the public interest till further orders after the retirement of Dr. N.C. Rao. According to the respondent-State, no Professor was eligible for promotion to the post of Principal. (viii)The contention of the petitioner has been that vide Annexure P-5 i.e. the judgment of this Court, she was admitted to be senior-most Professor in the Dental College and ranked senior to the private respondent and also in view of the order dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed in CWP-T No.2199 of 2008, she being senior-most, the additional charge of the post of Principal was wrongly withdrawn from her on 12.8.2010 vide notification Annexure P-8 and given to the Director, Medical Education and thereafter vide notification dated 18.4.2011 (Annexure P-9) to the 2nd respondent in addition to his own duties, who was junior to her, as such, sought quashing of the impugned order (Annexure P-9) aforesaid. 3. The respondents contested the petition. According to them, when the charge of the post of Principal was handed over to the petitioner, the administration of the Dental College became worst and deteriorated to the extent that an FIR was lodged against her husband Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj, who was in the same college and the FIR under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged for eve teasing to the female students, which was enquired into by the ‘Sexual Harassment Committee’ constituted by the College and the husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension against which, he filed a writ petition wherein, the female students also became party. Thus, due to mal-administration and taking note of all the facts, the State took a conscious decision to withdraw the charge of the Principal from the petitioner and handed over to the Director, Medical Education (DME) as per the office notings obtained under the RTI (PR-I colly), which facts were allegedly suppressed by the petitioner in her petition, hence not entitled for the relief sought. 4. 4. It is further submitted that as per the then unmanageable and prevailing circumstances, the charge of the post of the Principal was handed over to the Director, Medical Education also for the reasons that the members of the Dental Council of India (DCI) had visited the State Dental College to start P.G. Course and there were observations of the Executive Committee of DCI disapproving/ disallowing the application of the Government College for starting MDS course in the specialties of Paedo-Dontics and Preventive Dentistry for the academic session 2011-2012, on the grounds, one of which was that there had been deficiency of Principal with requisite dental qualification and experience per DCI norms. Apart from this, other applications for MDS course for Conservative Dentistry and Endo-dontics for academic session 2011-2012 were also rejected on the identical ground, thus it was against this background that the Government had taken a conscious decision to hand over the charge of the post of Principal to DME, a person fulfilling the requisite qualifications, which was never challenged by the petitioner. She only had a pinch when it was temporarily given to the private respondent. It is further contended that by handing over the charge to the 2nd respondent, at no point of time, right of consideration of the petitioner has been infringed by the State at any level, but she had invited such a situation of her own conduct. If the petitioner was not aggrieved by withdrawal of the charge when it was handed over to DME, she cannot now make any grievance when it was handed over to the 2nd respondent. 5. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was selected against the post of Professor in the Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. As a result of her selection on the said post, for which she had applied through proper channel, she tendered her resignation on 7.7.2011 which was accepted by the respondent-Department vide notification dated 26.7.2011. Consequently, the petitioner relinquished the charge of the post of Professor in Department of Periodontics from the said Dental College on 10.8.2011 (AN) and joined duties on the post on 11.8.2011 (F.N.) in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner relinquished the charge of the post of Professor in Department of Periodontics from the said Dental College on 10.8.2011 (AN) and joined duties on the post on 11.8.2011 (F.N.) in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. According to her, she had only tendered technical resignation on 7.7.2011 and sought permission by moving an application CMP No.13849 of 2011 dated 17.12.2011 to file supplementary affidavit referring to the R&P Rules that the post of Principal was to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the Professors with at least 10 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, if any, as Professor and Assistant Professor combined in the concerned speciality and that the incumbents are required to have rendered minimum 5 years essential service as Professor in the concerned speciality. The eligible officers are also required to pass departmental examination as prescribed in HP Departmental Examination Rules, 1997. The petitioner was designated as Professor vide notification dated 24.11.1999 (Annexure S-4) and joined as such on the same day. Vide judgment rendered in CWP-T No.2199 of 2008 (Annexure P-5), she was held senior to the private respondent holding the post of Professor (Periodontics) and discharged the duties as such w.e.f. 24.11.1999 and continued till she is regularly promoted on 29.1.2007 (Annexure P-2), thus fulfills the requirement of having 10 years regular service as Professor and Assistant Professor, combined, out of which she had essentially rendered 5 years service as Professor in the concerned speciality, therefore, she fulfills the requirement of qualifying service prescribed for the post of Professor. The said post has not been filled in till date after the retirement of Dr. N.C. Rao on 31.12.2007 and she has a fundamental right to be considered for the said post. 6. Filing of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit has been strongly resisted by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.5.2011 praying for the NOC for relieving as a result of her selection as Professor in Jamila Millia Islamia, New Delhi, consequently, submitted her resignation dated 7.7.2011, which was accepted as per provisions of Rule 26 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules on 26.7.2011. As per decision of Government of India below FR 13, it is clarified that a Government servant who has been selected for a post in Central Public Enterprise/ Central Autonomous body can be released only after obtaining and accepting resignation from Government service. Further that the resignation from Government service with a view to secure employment in Central Public enterprise with proper permission do not entail forfeiture of the service for the purpose of retirement and terminal benefits. In such cases, the Government servant concerned is deemed to have retired from service from the date of such resignation and is eligible to receive all retiral and terminal benefits as admissible under the relevant rules applicable to him in his parent organization. Since the petitioner vide her application dated 7.7.2011 (Annexure S-2) withdrew the request for premature retirement and requested for technical resignation in order to avail pensionary benefits in Jamia Millia Islamia by counting the past service rendered in Himachal Pradesh and also prayed for transfer of her service benefits/ pensionary liability to new employer, thus as per provision of FR 13 lien cannot be retained when the petitioner has proceeded on immediate absorption basis to a post or service outside her service/ cadre/ post in the Government from the date of absorption, as such the petitioner has no right to claim lien in State Dental College. 7. Though, it is admitted that the petitioner was re-designated as Professor (Periodontics) vide notification Annexure S-4, however, the said re-designation was done purely as a stop-gap arrangement and it did not confer any right for seniority etc. in service as mentioned in the said order, thus, objected to filing of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit. 8. It is further argued and submitted that the writ petition filed by her became infructuous because of the resignation from the said post and filing of the supplementary affidavit is only an effort put on by the petitioner to prolong the litigation, humiliate the respondents and no benefit by filing supplementary affidavit, which is not a part of pleading, can be granted to her. 9. 9. On thorough consideration of the matter, in my opinion, the relief claimed in the petition cannot be granted to the petitioner because she had resigned from the service, her resignation was accepted and she had joined in Jamia Millia Islamia, therefore, the question of handing over the charge of Principal to her from the 2nd respondent netiher arise for determination nor she has a locus-standi to seek quashment of Annexure P9, which otherwise also was a stop-gap arrangement by handing over the charge of the post of Principal to the 2nd respondent temporarily in addition to his own duties. Certainly the Government may make a stopgap arrangement by taking a conscious decision, which was, of course, taken to meet a particular situation in the peculiar circumstances of the case which is not amenable to judicial review. Thus, no fault can be found by handing over the charge to the 2nd respondent, as stated above. 10. Further the CMP No.13849 of 2011 to file the supplementary affidavit can also not be allowed as no relief can be granted on the facts pleaded in the supplementary affidavit which is not a part of pleadings as it gives rise to a fresh cause quite different to the prayer made in the petition, without opportunity to meet the case, which is sought to be made out now by the averments made in supplementary affidavit. The parties are at issue on a different ground as averred in this petition and by supplementing it by subsequent events, no relief can be granted. 11. In S.S. Sharma and others v. Union of India and others [ (1981)1 SCC 397 ] the apex Court observed that the Courts should ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their specific written pleadings and should not be permitted to deviate from them by way of modification or supplementation except through a well known process of formally applying for amendment, if undue laxity and too easy informality is permitted to enter the proceedings of a Court, it will not be a long before a contemptuous familiarity assails its institutional dignity and ushers in chaos and confusion undermining its effectiveness. Besides their oral submissions raising new points for the first time tend to do grave injury to a contesting party by depriving it of the opportunity, to which the principles of natural justice hold it entitled, of adequately preparing its response. Besides their oral submissions raising new points for the first time tend to do grave injury to a contesting party by depriving it of the opportunity, to which the principles of natural justice hold it entitled, of adequately preparing its response. 12. The Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration v. Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 326 , observed that the High Court is not justified in issuing any order excess of the relief prayed in the writ petition, unless the allegations are made in the writ petition and a relief is also prayed for in the writ. (Also see V.K. Malhotra v. Union of India with connected matters (2003) 8 SCC 40 .) 13. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, the petition as well as the CMP No.13849 of 2011 both are dismissed, so also the other pending applications, if any.