JUDGMENT : Both the writ petitions, mentioned above, were heard together on the prayer of learned counsel both side since the facts narrated and the points involved as well as the material parties in both the writ petitions were same and hence, this common judgment is passed which shall govern both the writ petitions. 2. WP(C) 444 of 2011 is taken up as the lead case and the documents annexed in that writ petition are referred in the judgment hereunder. 3. 2. WP(C) 444 of 2011 is taken up as the lead case and the documents annexed in that writ petition are referred in the judgment hereunder. 3. By filing WP(C) 444 of 2011, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue Rule upon the Official Respondents to show cause as to why the respondents should not transmit all records relating to this case of the petitioner; and (ii) As to why a Writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing the recommendations issued by Respondent No9 ( -O & P) recommending the names of respondent No10 & 11 to be eligible candidate to appoint as principal of IVH H.S.(+2) stage and concurrence issued by Respondent No8 ( -T) for appointment of Respondent No10 & 11 to the post of IVH H.S.(+2) stage declaring the same as violative of mandatory provisions of DPC’s to be followed, and (iii) As to why Writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the notifications No.F.20(39)DSWE/ESTT/96/2796(9) dated 2192011 and No.F.20(43)DSWE/ESTT/96/2795(9) dated, 2192011 issued by respondent No2 ( U & V) to the writ petition declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Recruitment Rules; and (iv) As to why writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the official respondents asking them as to why the Recruitment Rules of Headmaster/ Headmistress of H.S. Schools/District Inspector of Schools issued by the Under Secretary, Education department, Government of Tripura and Respondent No4 ( -F) shall not be applicable to appoint Principal of IVH, H.S.(+2) stage School in absence of any Recruitment Rules issued for appointment of Principal of IVH H.S.(+2) stage School; and (v) As to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent No2 and 7 to appoint/promote the petitioner to the post of Principal of IVH, H.S.(+2) stage, (Boys), Narsingarh, instead of Respondent No10 as the petitioner is the senior most Blind Educator having 19 years experience and fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be appointed/promoted in the said post; (vi) As to why such other order or orders, relief/relieves should not be passed so as to give full relief to the petitioner and upon causes shown to make the Rule absolute. 4. Again by filing WP(C) 88 of 2015, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs: I. Issue Notice upon the Respondents. II. Call for the relevant records. III. 4. Again by filing WP(C) 88 of 2015, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs: I. Issue Notice upon the Respondents. II. Call for the relevant records. III. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Promotion granted to the Private Respondents in the post of Principal, I.V.H (Boy’s), Narsinghar and I.V.H. (Girl’s), Narsinghar shall not be quashed and as to why the Private Respnodents shall not be reverted to the post of Blind Educator under the Respondent Department. AND Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a direction mandating the Respondents to send proposal for Review D.P.C. to the Gr. A Departmental Promotional committee by preparing Revised Zone of consideration of Blind Educators on the basis of Revised Seniority List dated 21st July, 2014 from the year 2007/2008 and to promote the petitioner to the post of Principal, Institute for the Visually Handicapped (Boy’s), Narsinghar w.e.f April, 2007 with all consequential monitory relief, SHALL NOT BE ISSUED. AND Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the remaining arrear amount & T.A/D.A for the training period of the petitioner shall not be granted in favour of the Petitioners as per the judgment and order dated 19.03.2014 passed in W.P(C) No.203 of 2009. IV. And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute. AND/OR Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court. 5. Heard learned counsel of the parties at length. 6. The Institute of Visually Handicapped (for short, IVH) under the Directorate of Social Welfare and Social Education (SWSE), Govt. of Tripura, was set up on 01.07.1972. In 1984, the institute was bifurcated as IVH (Boys) at Narsingarh and IVH (Girls) at Badharghat. By an offer of appointment dated 29.07.1992, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis initially for a period of 12 months as a Blind Educator in the IVH and he joined on 14.10.1992. The appointment was made as per the Recruitment Rules of Blind Educator dated 12.01.1973 ( -C to the writ petition). By an offer of appointment dated 29.07.1992, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis initially for a period of 12 months as a Blind Educator in the IVH and he joined on 14.10.1992. The appointment was made as per the Recruitment Rules of Blind Educator dated 12.01.1973 ( -C to the writ petition). The petitioner continued service in his temporary appointment on ad hoc basis for 14 years and thereafter he was selected through Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) in due course on regular basis vide memo dated 14.09.2006 ( -L to the writ petition) and was appointed on regular basis vide memo dated 10.11.2006 ( -M) to the writ petition). 7. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 of WP(C) 444 of 2011 who are named as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in WP(C) 88 of 2015, hereinafter mentioned as respondent Nos.10 and 11, were appointed on regular basis as a Blind Educator. Respondent No.10 joined on 28.08.2000 and respondent No.11 joined on 17.08.2000. 8. By notification dated 15.02.1984 ( -D to the writ petition) Recruitment Rules for appointment of Principal in the IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) was notified. The age limit, the educational and other qualification, method of recruitment etc. has been prescribed in item Nos. 6 to 11 of the Recruitment Rules which reads as follows: “6) Age limit for direct recruitment : Maximum 35 years. Relaxable by 5 years in case of SC/ST candidates and Govt. servants. 7) Educational & other qualification required for direct recruitment. : I) Graduate of a recognized University. Preference will be given to the Master Degree Holder. II) One Academic year training in education of the Blind conducted by the Government of India. Ministry of Social Welfare. III) Knowledge of Bengali/KakBarak. IV) Administrative experience of at least years 5 in any Institution of the Handicapped. 8) Whether age and educational Qualification prescribed for direct Recruit will apply in case of Promotees : AgeNo, QualificationYes. 9) Period of probation, if any : Two years. 10) Method of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of vacancies to be filled by various method : By promotion failing which direct recruitment. 11) In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer to be made. : Promotion: from Blind Educators in the scale of Rs.6003585040990451440/ with 10(ten) years Experience in the post.” 9. 10) Method of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of vacancies to be filled by various method : By promotion failing which direct recruitment. 11) In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer to be made. : Promotion: from Blind Educators in the scale of Rs.6003585040990451440/ with 10(ten) years Experience in the post.” 9. As per the above Recruitment Rules, dated 15.02.1984, respondent No.10 was appointed as the Principal of IVH (Boys) High School at Narshigarh and respondent No.11 was appointed as the Principal of IVH (Girls) High School at Badharghat. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of bifurcation in 1984 both the IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) were of High School standard and the Recruitment Rules of 1984 was made for appointment to the post of Principal of the said High School standard. 10. Respondent No.10 was appointed as Principal of IVH (Boys), Narsingarh and respondent No.11 was appointed as IVH (Girls), Badharghat vide notification dated 21.09.2011 ( -U & -V respectively to the writ petition). 11. A common seniority list for the post of Blind Educator under the Social Welfare and Social Education (SWSE) Department, Govt. of Tripura was published on 13.08.2007 ( -N to the writ petition) wherein the name of respondent No.10 was shown in Sl.No.9 and respondent No.11 was shown in Sl.No.10 and petitioner’s name was shown in Sl. No.12. As per that seniority list, the petitioner was shown junior to the respondent Nos. 10 and 11. 12. Claiming regularization of his service w.e.f. his date of joining on ad hoc basis and seniority etc., the petitioner filed WP(C) 203/2009 and that was pending before the High Court, when the present writ petition No.444 of 2011 was filed. 13. In the year 2009 both the IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) were upgraded from High School to Higher Secondary School and that decision was communicated to the Secretary, Tripura Board of Secondary Education by the Principal Secretary of the Govt. of Tripura by writing a letter dated 06.02.2009 ( -E to the writ petition). Respondent Nos. 13. In the year 2009 both the IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) were upgraded from High School to Higher Secondary School and that decision was communicated to the Secretary, Tripura Board of Secondary Education by the Principal Secretary of the Govt. of Tripura by writing a letter dated 06.02.2009 ( -E to the writ petition). Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were appointed on 21.09.2011 as Principal of IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) respectively after it was upgraded to Higher Secondary School from High School standard pursuant to the Recruitment Rules of the year 1984 ( -D to the writ petition) which was meant for the appointment of Principal of IVH at High School level. 14. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a science graduate, honours in Physiology and also obtained master degree in Political Science and successfully completed training of Blind Educator and also obtained diploma in special education. His name was also registered as a Rehabilitation Professional in the All India Register of Rehabilitation Council of India as per the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter mentioned as Act No.34 of 1992). It is alleged that respondent No.10 was appointed as Principal of IVH (Boys) and she was a simple graduate having training of Blind Education and respondent No.11 was an honours graduate also having with training of Blind Education. It is the case of the petitioner that after the institute was upgraded from High School to Higher Secondary School in the year 2009, the official respondents did not make any Rule corresponding to the standard and quality required for appointment of Principal and most illegally and wrongly forwarded the name of respondent nos. 10 and 11 to the DPC for consideration of the name of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to fill up the post of Principal IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) respectively. The official respondents while recommending the name of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 suppressed the fact that the institute was already upgraded as Higher Secondary School from High School whereas the Recruitment Rules of 1984 was followed which was meant for appointment of Principal of a High School. The material fact was suppressed to the DPC and TPSC and those DPC and TPSC also wrongly and illegally approved the candidature of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 for appointment to the post of Principal. 15. The material fact was suppressed to the DPC and TPSC and those DPC and TPSC also wrongly and illegally approved the candidature of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 for appointment to the post of Principal. 15. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the respondents were not registered as a Rehabilitation Professional as required under the Act No.34 of 1992 which is an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act and so they cannot act as a Rehabilitation Professional and consequently cannot be appointed as a Principal. 16. By filing WP(C) No.444/2011, the petitioner prayed for quashing the appointment of respondents as Principal of IVH (Boys) and (Girls) Higher Secondary School and also prayed for directing the respondents to promote him in the post of Principal IVH (Boys) at Narsingarh. It is the further case of the petitioner that WP(C) 203/2009 was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 19.03.2014 in following terms: “15. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get regularization of his service with effect from the date of his joining i.e. from 19.10.1992. He is also entitled to get seniority, pay protection etc. from the date of his joining i.e. with effect from 19.10.1992. He is further entitled to get all service benefits during the course of his training with effect from July, 2002 to May, 2003. 16. Respondents are accordingly, directed to give the benefits to the petitioner within 45(forty five) days from today.” 17. The petitioner further contended that pursuant to the above judgment a revised seniority list was prepared and published vide memo dated 21.07.2014 ( -P/12 to the writ petition No.88/2015) and therein the petitioner has been shown in Sl.No.1 as the senior most Blind Educator and the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have been shown in Sl. No. 2 and 3. By filing WP(C) 88/2015, the petitioner, therefore, prayed for directing the respondents for review DPC and to promote the petitioner in the post of Principal, IVH (Boys) after setting aside the appointment of respondent No.10. 18. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 of WP(C) 444/2011 that respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were regularly appointed in the year 2000 whereas the petitioner was regularly appointed in the year 2006 as Blind Educator. As per the seniority list dated 13.08.2007 respondent Nos. 18. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 of WP(C) 444/2011 that respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were regularly appointed in the year 2000 whereas the petitioner was regularly appointed in the year 2006 as Blind Educator. As per the seniority list dated 13.08.2007 respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were senior to the petitioner and accordingly as per the Recruitment Rules of 1984, their names were forwarded for consideration by the DPC and the DPC in due course recommended their names for appointment to the post of Principal, IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) respectively. The State respondents at their wisdom followed the Recruitment Rules of 1984 even after upgradation and nothing was done dehors the rules. The promotion of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to the post of Principal, IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) respectively were made in due process following the Recruitment Rules and so there is no point at all for interference by this Court in the decision making process of the administrative authority. Regarding the allegation that the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 had no registration as required under Act No.34 of 1992, nothing stated in the affidavit in opposition by the State respondents. 19. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 by filing separate written statement in WP(C) 444/11 contended that the department recommended the names of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 in accordance with the seniority list prepared and published by the department according to the Rules of 1984 and following the Recruitment Rules, the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were recommended for the post of Principal of both the institutes. 20. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 also submitted a joint affidavit in opposition, inter alia, contending that they were appointed on regular basis prior to the petitioner and they were having with all qualification. They also contended that registration as a Rehabilitation Professional under the Act No.34 of 1992 was not an essential requirement for appointment to the post of Blind Educator or the Principal of the institute. 21. The first point which fell for consideration is whether the present writ petitions are barred by constructive Respondent judicataas well as Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC? 22. It is argued by learned counsel of the respondents that the petitioner filed WP(C) 203/2009 seeking regularization from the year 1992 i.e. the date of his ad hoc appointment as well as seniority etc. 22. It is argued by learned counsel of the respondents that the petitioner filed WP(C) 203/2009 seeking regularization from the year 1992 i.e. the date of his ad hoc appointment as well as seniority etc. and in that writ petition itself the petitioner would pray for cancellation and/or quashing of appointment of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 as Blind Educator and also would make prayer for consideration of his name for the post of Principal IVH (Boys). According to learned counsel of the respondents, the writ petition is hopelessly barred by the principle of constructive res judicata as well as Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. The record of WP(C) 203/2009 was called at the time of hearing of the present writ petitions. The reliefs sought in that writ petition were as follows: “As to why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the memorandum No.F.3(33) DSWE/ ESTT/ 97 (LII) /1871(2) dated 13/09/07 issued by the Respondent No.2 ( 25) and the final seniority list of Blind Educators under the Social Welfare and Social Education Department Government of Tripura published vide memo No;N.19(21)DSWE/CONF/82/1492(9) dated 13/08/07 issued by the Respondent No.2.( 26) AND As to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to treat the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Blind Educator w.e.f. 19/10/1992 as on regular basis with all consequential benefits including pay protection and seniority of service by way of modification of the offer and appointment issued vide memorandum No.F.3(33)DSWE/ESTT/97 dated 14/09/06 issued by the Respondent No.2 ( 20) and to modify the final seniority list dated 13/08/07 in 26 by placing the name of the Petitioner above the Respondents 4,5 and 6 and to treat the period of inservice training from July,2002 to May,2003 as on duty and to give all benefits of service including salary to the Petitioner for the said period.” 23. While disposing that writ petition by judgment dated 19.03.2004, the following reliefs were allowed. “15. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get regularization of his service with effect from the date of his joining i.e. from 19.10.1992. He is also entitled to get seniority, pay protection etc. from the date of his joining i.e. with effect from 19.10.1992. “15. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get regularization of his service with effect from the date of his joining i.e. from 19.10.1992. He is also entitled to get seniority, pay protection etc. from the date of his joining i.e. with effect from 19.10.1992. He is further entitled to get all service benefits during the course of his training with effect from July, 2002 to May, 2003. 16. Respondents are accordingly, directed to give the benefits to the petitioner within 45(forty five) days from today.” 24. I have already mentioned hereinbefore the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions. WP(C) 444/11 was filed challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 in the post of Principal which was made in the year 2011. It was submitted by learned counsel of the respondents that WP(C) 203/09 was pending at the time when respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were promoted to the post of Principal and so, the petitioner would amend WP(C) 203/09 and seek the relief which has been sought in WP(C) 444/11. Admittedly, the petitioner did not do so. 25. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a separate writ petition since there were new developments and filing of a separate writ petition on the new cause of action cannot be termed as a constructive res judicata or as a bar under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. 26. This is a settled law that a matter which might or ought to have been made a ground of attack or defence in the former suit, but which was not so done, operates as constructive res judicata. 27. In the present writ petitions, as I find, the petitioner filed WP(C) 203/2009 seeking some specific reliefs against the respondents in respect of his regularization w.e.f. the date of his ad hoc appointment as well his seniority etc. virtually challenging the seniority list dated 13.08.2007. The present WP(C) No. 444/11 has been filed challenging the promotion of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to the post of Principal of IVH (Boys) and (Girls) which was done in the year 2011 and also prayed for his promotion to the post as Principal of the IVH (Boys). So, it is absolutely a new cause of action and new fact and according to the learned counsel, Mr. 10 and 11 to the post of Principal of IVH (Boys) and (Girls) which was done in the year 2011 and also prayed for his promotion to the post as Principal of the IVH (Boys). So, it is absolutely a new cause of action and new fact and according to the learned counsel, Mr. Bhwomik, it is filed separately as a matter of convenience and I am in full agreement with learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that such filing of new writ petitions 444/11 and 88/15 cannot operate as constructive res judicata. It is also clear that WP(C) 88/2015 has been filed after the judgment in WP(C) 203/99 was passed seeking review DPC and therefore, it cannot be said that it is barred by constructive res judicata. 28. The Supreme Court in the case of Gulabchand Chotalal parikh V. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1153 has considered the issue of application of Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC in the matters of writ petition and in Para 26 of the judgment, the Apex Court held thus - “26. Before we deal with the question, we may dispose of the short points urged for the appellant. It is urged that if a decision in a writ application on merits be held to operate as res judicata in a regular suit, the provisions of 0.2, R. 2 C.P.C. would also be applicable to the institution of the subsequent suit with respect to such part of the cause of action for which no relief was sought in the writ petition. The contention is not sound as the provisions of R. 2, 0.2 apply only to suit. Subr. (1) requires that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. Subr. (2) then provides that where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. By its very language, these provisions do not apply to the contents of a writ petition and consequently do not apply to the contents of a subsequent suit. By its very language, these provisions do not apply to the contents of a writ petition and consequently do not apply to the contents of a subsequent suit. Such a view was indicated by this Court in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 315: ( AIR 1962 SC 1334 ), when it was said at p. 324 (of SCR): "The bar of 0.2, R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on which the High Court apparently relied may not apply to a petition for a high prerogative writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court having disallowed the claim of the appellant for salary prior to the date of the suit, we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the exercise of its discretion by the High Court." 29. In view of the above, I am of considered opinion that the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions are not barred Under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. 30. The next issue which fell for consideration is whether the DPC recommendation and consequent appointment of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 as the Principal of IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) Higher Secondary School respectively by the appointment order dated 21.09.2011 ( -U and -V to the writ petition) as per Recruitment Rules of the year 1984, is liable to be interfered and quashed? 31. It is an admitted position that IVH was set up in the year 1972 and it was bifurcated as IVH (Boys), Narsingarh and IVH (Girls), Badharghat in the year 1984. It was a High School at that point of time. The Recruitment Rules for appointment of Principal notified in the year 1984 ( -D to the writ petition) was meant for the High School standard since both the institutes were at the level of High School standard at that point of time. It is also an admitted position that the High School was upgraded as Higher Secondary School in the year 2009 ( -E to the writ petition). 32. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the Govt. has taken a decision for upgradation of both the IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) but decision was effected in respect of IVH (Boys) and in respect of IVH(Girls) it has not been yet effected. 32. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the Govt. has taken a decision for upgradation of both the IVH (Boys) and IVH (Girls) but decision was effected in respect of IVH (Boys) and in respect of IVH(Girls) it has not been yet effected. No such averment made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 that IVH (Girls) at Badharghat has not yet been actually upgraded though there was Govt. decision to that effect. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were promoted to the post of Principal in the year 2011 i.e. after upgradation of both the Schools to the Higher Secondary level and the promotion was made as per the Recruitment Rules of 1984. The petitioner placed on record a .Recruitment Rules of the appointment of Headmaster/Headmistress of the Higher Secondary School under the Education Department, Govt. of Tripura ( F to the writ petition) vide notification dated 01.01.2006 wherein for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress higher educational qualification of Master degree etc. has been prescribed. 33. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the event the IVH were upgraded as Higher Secondary School, there ought to have been a fresh Recruitment Rules for appointment of Principal of Higher Secondary School and the appointment would not have been made following the Recruitment Rules of 1984 which was meant for a High School. The educational and other qualification ought to have been of higher standard to maintain the quality etc. of the education in the IVH. It is contended by the petitioner that information as sought through RTI as to whether educational qualification for the post of Principal was finalized or not after the institute was upgraded as Higher Secondary School and in reply to that query, the SPIO of SW&SE Directorate of Govt. of Tripura wrote letter dated 30.09.2011 (AnenxureG to the writ petition) informed that the educational qualification for such appointment to the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary School was not finalized on the date of issuing the information i.e. on 30.09.2011 whereas the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were appointed on 21.09.2011 though there was no decision about the educational qualification. 34. Mr. 10 and 11 were appointed on 21.09.2011 though there was no decision about the educational qualification. 34. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has placed on record a computer generated copy of Apex Court judgment dated 27.11.1997 in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Cecil vs. The Managing Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devividya Ma (case no. not mentioned). The fact of that case reveals that a junior standard school was upgraded as Higher Secondary School. The appellant was a Headmistress of the junior standard school and when it was upgraded for the post of Principal she also participated and she was selected by the Managing Committee but her appointment was subject to approval as per the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act,1921 and her appointment as Principal was subsequently terminated. It was an admitted position in that case that the appellant was not having with the requisite qualifications meant for appointment of Principal of Higher Secondary School. While deciding that case the Apex Court held– “considering the pleadings of the parties and the provisions of law set out above the answer becomes quite obvious that the appellant had no case either in the suit or in the writ petition. The appellant ceased to be Headmistress on upgradation of school of the respondent to the Higher Secondary School as the post was upgraded. She did not possess qualifications to be appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary School. Her qualifications were not relaxed. The Competent Authority under the Intermediate Education Act did not grant approval for her appointment as a Principal which is a precondition under the law. Since the appointment itself was not approved it was not necessary for the Managing Committee of the school to get consent of the authority concerned for the termination of her services as a Principal. Her civil suit and the writ petition had no basis and were rightly dismissed by the High Court.” 35. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel also placed on record another computer generated copy of judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, dated 15.03.2007, in the case of Ajay Pratap Rai vs. District Basic Education (case no. not mentioned). The fact of that case also relates to the promotion to the post of an upgraded institution. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel also placed on record another computer generated copy of judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, dated 15.03.2007, in the case of Ajay Pratap Rai vs. District Basic Education (case no. not mentioned). The fact of that case also relates to the promotion to the post of an upgraded institution. It was a Junior High School upgraded to High School and subsequently as Intermediate College and while the issue of promotion to the post of head of the institute was under consideration the litigation arose and the Allahabad High Court in Para 9 to 13 observed thus: “9. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that the learned Single Judge after having noticed the Full Bench decision in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Sushila Gupta (supra) has held that once a Junior High School stands upgraded as a High School or an Intermediate College, then in that event the post of the Head of the Institution has to be filled up in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act 1921 read with Act 1982. It has been held that in such eventuality the Junior High School looses its identity as such and upon upgradation of the institution, there cannot be any appointment of a Head Master in a Junior High School under Rules 1978. For this, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the decisions referred to therein and has also indicated the ratio of the decision in Sushila Gupta's case to be fully applicable to the facts of the present controversy. 10. The issue raised by the appellant, therefore, in respect of the status of the institution as still to be that of a Junior High School for the purposes of appointment on the post of Head of the Institution, has to be rejected for the reasons given by the learned Single Judge with which we find ourselves to be in full agreement with, The word "upgradation" in its normal connotation means improvement; enhancement of status; more efficient. The word "grade" is derived from the latin word ''gradus' which means degree, step. In Hari Nandan Sharan Bhatnagar Vs. S.N. Dixit & Anr. and A.K. Subraman Vs. The word "grade" is derived from the latin word ''gradus' which means degree, step. In Hari Nandan Sharan Bhatnagar Vs. S.N. Dixit & Anr. and A.K. Subraman Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Apex Court held 'grade' means rank, position in a scale, a class or position in a class according to the value. It means a degree in the scale of rank, dignity, proficiency etc. (Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). The word 'upgradation' therefore means improvement in degree, raising of status, rank, quality or in value. It is an improvement in proficiency and reflects a rising gradient. The institution was admittedly a Junior High School and was raised to the status of a High School in 1993 and to that of Intermediate College in the year 1999. It is undisputed that upon being upgraded as a High School, the institution has been recognized as such under the provisions of Act 1921. This undisputed position, therefore, clearly establishes that the institution ceases to be a Junior High School and for the purposes of appointment of Head of the Institution, the appointment can only be made by resorting to the provisions as indicated in the judgment rendered in Sushila Gupta's case (supra). The observations made by the Full Bench in the case of State of U.P. Vs. District Judge Varanasi (supra), which have been quoted in detail by the learned Single Judge are worth reiterating to the effect that Basic School or a Junior High School is different from a High School or an Intermediate College as the same institution cannot be called Basic School or a Junior High School as well as a High School or an Intermediate College. The Full Bench above referred to held as under: "On a Basic School or a Junior High School being upgraded as a High School or Intermediate College, the identity of the institution known as Basic School or a Junior High School is lost and it ceases to exist as a legal entity and in its place another institution with a legal entity comes into being. One cannot be equated with the other." 11. One cannot be equated with the other." 11. The aforesaid observations of the Full Bench as explained in the judgment of Sushila Gupta's case, therefore, leave no room for doubt that the selection and appointment on the post of Head of the Institution which has been recognized as a High School and Intermediate College cannot be made under the provisions which are applicable to a Junior High School. In Sushila Gupta (supra), the learned Single Judge considered all the Amendment made in the Statute and held that in spite of so many amendments to the statutory provisions, the proposition of law laid down by the above referred to Full Bench remained the same. Mr. Saxena has not brought to our notice any provision which have altered the legal position. 12.From the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that status of an institution after being upgraded looses its significance and the lower section of the school after upgradation completely merges into the upgraded institution. Interpreting the provisions otherwise would lead to complete absurdity and create a chaotic situation even for governance of the different parts of the same institution. An institution cannot have a multiple Code for its governance. There is no provision permitting continued applicability of the laws in relation to a Junior High School even after its upgradation. 13.The contention of Shri Saxena, therefore, to the effect that institution did not loose its identity as a Junior High School has to be necessarily rejected. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that neither the selection nor appointment of the appellant nor the appointment of the respondent no.3 was in order and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that no selection or appointment has been held in accordance with law to the post of Head of the Institution.” 36. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 10 was a simple graduate and respondent No.11 was an honours graduate having training of Blind Educator. They had no Master degree in any subject. The petitioner was an honours graduate in Physiology of the year 1990 and he has done M.A. in Political Science in the year 2007 while in service. They had no Master degree in any subject. The petitioner was an honours graduate in Physiology of the year 1990 and he has done M.A. in Political Science in the year 2007 while in service. As per the seniority list dated 13.08.2007 ( N to the writ petition) respondent Nos.10 and 11 were senior to the petitioner since they were regularly appointed in the year 2000 and petitioner was regularly appointed in the year 2006. The petitioner got an order in his favour for regularization of his past service on ad hoc basis from the year 1992 and thereafter the official respondents published a revised seniority list dated 21.07.2014 ( P/12 to writ petition No.88/15) wherein the petitioner has been shown as senior to the respondents. It is an admitted position that in the year 2011 the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were senior to the petitioner as per the seniority list of the year 2007. They were appointed as Principal pursuant to the Recruitment Rules of 1984. It is clear from the pleadings and materials on record that the fact of upgradation of the School at the level of Higher Secondary School was not communicated to the DPC. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were appointed as Principal pursuant to a Rule which was meant for High School. It is generally expected that when an institution is upgraded, for appointment to the post of head of the institution, the educational and other qualification also should be of superior standard to maintain the quality and standard of the institution. 37. Learned counsel of the respondents submitted that the State respondents at their wisdom decided to follow 1984 rules and there is nothing wrong in doing so. Since following a particular rule the promotion were made, this Court is not required to interfere in exercise of the power of judicial review. 38. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Pal V. Achintya Kumar Nayak & Ors., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 379 Para 19, wherein it was observed that for exercising the power of judicial review the Court has a limited role to play. It could interfere only if any legal error has been committed in the decision making process. It could not enter into the merit of the decision. 39. It could interfere only if any legal error has been committed in the decision making process. It could not enter into the merit of the decision. 39. This principle has been followed by this Court also in the case of Manik Chandra Das & Ors. V. the State of Tripura & Ors. in WP(C) 262 of 2012 vide judgment dated 19.08.2015, wherein in Para 7 it was held- “7. This Court is not sitting as an Appellate Authority in such matters. Judicial review of administrative action is limited to see whether the action has been taken in accordance with well settled principles. It is for the State to decide the Recruitment Rules for a particular post. It is for the State to decide what are the eligibility criteria for filling up the posts. In cases of promotions, it is for the State to decide who shall be in the feeder category. The Courts normally do not interfere in these matters unless the decision of the State is perverse.” 40. There is no quarrel that judicial review in respect of administrative action is very limited but that does not mean that the Court in a given case, where the State action is found to be not inconformity with the requirement of law, should not interfere. No doubt the selection of the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 was made pursuant to a Rule but that Rule was meant for appointment of Principal at High School level. While the school was upgraded as Higher Secondary level, there ought to have been at least amendment of that Rule commensurating the standard of Higher Secondary School which the State Govt. also maintains in respect of Higher Secondary School ( F to the writ petition). Since the respondents were already appointed following a Recruitment Rule, I am not inclined to interfere in it, but I think it appropriate to give directions to the respondents to suitably amend the Recruitment Rule for appointment of Principal IVH of Higher Secondary School in respect of educational and other qualifications are concerned and that amendment should be made within 6(six) months from today and till the amendment is made respondent Nos. 10 and 11 shall continue to the post of Principal IVH of the Higher Secondary School and after amendment the official respondents shall consider afresh as to whether the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 shall continue to the post of Principal IVH of the Higher Secondary School and after amendment the official respondents shall consider afresh as to whether the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 would be eligible for appointment to the post of Principal or not of the School at Higher Secondary level. That consideration should be made within 3(three) months after the amendment and otherwise after 3(three) months, the appointment of the respondent Nos. 10 & 11 as Principal of the IVH (Higher Secondary School), shall stand as quashed. 41. The next issue which fell for consideration is-whether a registration as per Act No.34 of 1992 was compulsory? 42. Section 13 of the Act reads as follows: “13.RightsofpersonspossessingqualificationsincludedintheScheduletobeenrolled.(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any qualification included in the Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on the Register. (2) No person, other than the rehabilitation professional who possesses a recognised rehabilitation qualification and is enrolled on the Register, (a) shall hold office as rehabilitation professional or any such office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate any certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a rehabilitation professional; (d) shall be entitled to give any evidence in any court as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on any matter relating to the handicapped: Provided that if a person possesses the recognised rehabilitation professional qualifications on the date of commencement of this Act, he shall be deemed to be an enrolled rehabilitation professional for a period of six months from such commencement, and if he has made an application for enrolment on the Register within said period of six months, till such application is disposed of. (3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of subsection (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 43. (3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of subsection (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 43. The word “rehabilitation professional” has been defined in Section 2(n) which reads thus: “2 (n) “rehabilitation professionals" means (i) audiologists and speech therapists; (ii) clinical psychologists; (iii) hearing aid and ear mould technicians; (iv) rehabilitation engineers and technicians; (v) special teachers for educating and training the handicaped; (vi) vocational counsellors, employment officers and placement officers dealing with handicapped; (vii) multipurpose rehabilitation therapists, technicians; or (viii) such other category of professionals as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, notify from time to time;” 44. The Act further prescribes that the Member Secretary of the Rehabilitation Council of India shall maintain a register and every Rehabilitation Professional shall register their name in the register maintained by the Member Secretary of the Council. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 of WP(C) 444/2011 stated nothing in respect of that contention raised by the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 simply stated that registration was not an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Principal. 45. Learned counsel of the respondents submitted that Rehabilitation Professional means the professional like NGOs etc. and not the Blind Educators. I cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel of the respondents. The definition of Rehabilitation Professional as contained in the Act clearly means that the special teachers for educating and training the handicapped come within the purview of Rehabilitation Professional. Since for educating visually handicapped special sorts of training and education is required, the Act prescribed even the names of the institutions where such education can be imparted. No doubt, the respondents are having with the requisite qualification of Blind Educator but it is an admitted position that they have not registered their names in accordance with the provisions of the Act which prevails over any Rule framed by the State Govt. for appointment of Principal or Blind Educator. The respondent Nos. No doubt, the respondents are having with the requisite qualification of Blind Educator but it is an admitted position that they have not registered their names in accordance with the provisions of the Act which prevails over any Rule framed by the State Govt. for appointment of Principal or Blind Educator. The respondent Nos. 10 and 11 if so advised may take steps to register their names in accordance with the provisions of the Act within 6 (six) months from today and if they failed to do so, the official respondents are directed to take appropriate action at their wisdom in respect of their appointment not only as a Principal but also as a Blind Educator of the institute in accordance with the provisions of the Act No.34 of 1992. 46. The next issue which fell for consideration is—whether this Court should direct the official respondents to invite a review DPC pursuant to the revised seniority list dated 21.07.2014. 47. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel, that the judgment dated 19.03.2014 has been challenged by filing an intra Court appeal and that appeal is pending and so until and unless the judgment in WP(C) 203/2009 reached finality, the petitioner cannot claim for review DPC for his promotion. 48. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, on the contrary, submitted that after about one and half year of the judgment in WP(C) 203/09, the respondents preferred a writ appeal challenging the judgment with a condonation petition and that condonation petition has not been allowed as yet and so the judgment passed in that case is in force being not stayed. 49. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has referred the case of Dharam Dutt & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 1 SCC 712 , Para 69 and submitted that once an appeal is preferred it is sufficient to hold that the finality of the judgment has been destroyed. 50. Once an appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court, until that appeal is disposed of and the judgment passed reached the finality, it will not be proper to direct the respondents to hold a review DPC. 50. Once an appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court, until that appeal is disposed of and the judgment passed reached the finality, it will not be proper to direct the respondents to hold a review DPC. However, I think it appropriate to direct that in the event the judgment in WP(C) 203/09 reached the finality and is not interfered by any superior forum, the respondents shall hold review DPC within 60 days after such finality and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal, IVH (Boys) according to the Rules. 51. Other reliefs sought in the WP(C) 88/15 cannot be allowed since the petitioner will be entitled to enforce the judgment in WP(C) 203/09 if it was not interfered. 52. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondents are to suitably amend the Recruitment Rules for appointment of Principal of IVH Higher Secondary School in respect of educational and other qualifications are concerned and that amendment should be made within 6(six) months from today and till the amendment is made respondent Nos. 10 and 11 shall continue to the post of Principal of the IVH Higher Secondary School and after amendment the official respondents shall consider afresh as to whether the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 would be eligible for appointment to the post of Principal or not of the School at Higher Secondary level. That consideration should be made within 3(three) months after the amendment and otherwise after 3(three) months, the appointment of the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 as Principal of the IVH (Higher Secondary School), shall stand as quashed. (ii) The respondent Nos. 10 and 11, if so advised may take steps to register their names in accordance with the provisions of the Act within 6 (six) months from today and if they failed to do so, the official respondents are directed to take appropriate action at their wisdom in respect of their appointment not only as a Principal but also as a Blind Educator of the institute in accordance with the provisions of the Act No.34 of 1992. (iii) In the event the judgment in WP(C) 203/09 reached the finality and is not interfered by any superior forum, the respondents shall hold review DPC within 60 days after such finality and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal, IVH (Boys) according to the Rules. 53. Parties to bear their respective costs.