JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. M.Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents as well as Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Gunabanta, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner are heard together and disposed of by the common order in view of the commonality of the issues involved. 3. In W.P(C) No.506 of2015, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 29.5.2015 by which the petitioner, who was earlier serving as in-charge Zonal Education Officer, Thoubal, has been posted as an Officer on Special Duty at the Directorate of Education (S), Lamphel and the respondent No.4, who was earlier serving as a DI/DDO of the office of the Zonal Education Officer, Thoubal has been posted as in-charge Zonal Education Officer, Thoubal. It is the case of the petitioner that though the respondent No.4 was not even eligible for appointment as a D.I. not to mention of the post of Zonal Education Officer, however, by the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.5.2015, the respondent No.4 has been made as in-charge Zonal Education Officer, Thoubal which the petitioner contends to be illegal inasmuch as, firstly; the in charge arrangement has been sought to be replaced by another in-charge arrangement, which is not permissible in law. Secondly, the appointment of the respondent No.4 who is not eligible even for appointment as D.I. of Schools, has been appointed as the Zonal Education Officer, Thoubal on in-charge basis by way of malafide exercise of power in order to accommodate the respondent No.4 and to oust the petitioner from the office of the Zonal Education Officer, Thoubal. 4. The petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was holding the substantive post of Lecturer of Government Higher Secondary School, having been appointed on 2nd September, 1987 and was allowed to hold the post of Zonal Education Officer Thoubal, a higher post on in-charge basis. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was to the higher post of Vice Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School on regular basis on the recommendation of the DPC held on 23.11.2015 in association with the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) vide order dated 31.12.2015. By the same order dated 31.12.2015, the petitioner was posted as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School, in Churachandpur District. By the same order dated 31.12.2015, the petitioner was posted as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School, in Churachandpur District. The petitioner fairly submits that he, however, has no grievance about his promotion to the post of Vice Principal vide order dated 31.12.2015. However, he is aggrieved by his posting at Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School as Vice Principal as he desires to remain as ZEO, Thoubal on in-charge basis. He also fairly submits that he has not challenged the validity of the said posting order dated 31.12.2015 either in this writ petition or by way of any other application filed before this Court. He, however, contends that his posting as Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School has been issued only to accommodate the respondent No.4 as in-charge of the Zonal Education Officer, Thoubal. The position which emerges from the above is that though the petitioner, at the time of filing the writ petition, was holding the substantive post of Lecturer and he could legitimately challenge the in-charge arrangement as per impugned order dated 29.05.2015, because of his subsequent promotion as a Vice Principal of a Government Higher Secondary School and posting at Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School during the pendency of the writ petition, thus a paradigm shift has occurred. The earlier in-charge appointment of the petitioner as ZEO, Thoubal has been replaced by his appointment as the Vice Principal of a Hr. Sec. School by virtue of his promotion to the post of Vice Principal of a Hr. Sec. School, which is a natural consequence of his promotion and is legally valid. Hence, this Court is of the view that his challenge to the impugned order of transfer dated 29.5.2015 has assumed a mere academic exercise, though the petitioner may have had valid reasons to challenge the same. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not challenged his posting as a Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School, the position which emerges is that though he remains as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School, by this petition he would continue to assail the transfer order dated 29.5.2015, which, in the opinion of this Court is not permissible. If he desired, he could also challenge his posting as Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School and continue challenging the validity of the impugned transfer order dated 29.5.2015 so that he may claim that his posting as Vice Principal of the Hr. If he desired, he could also challenge his posting as Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School and continue challenging the validity of the impugned transfer order dated 29.5.2015 so that he may claim that his posting as Vice Principal of the Hr. Sec. School is bad and he may continue as the i/c ZEO of Thoubal. However, as the petitioner has opted not to challenge his posting as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School, he has to remain as the Vice Principal of the said school as per the latest transfer order dated 31.12.2015 in which event, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would have no more locus standi to challenge the transfer order dated 29.5.2015 because of the changed circumstances. If the petitioner is successful in challenging the transfer order dated 29.05.2015, it would lead to an anomalous situation where the petitioner would have two places of posting which law does not contemplate. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition has become virtually infructuous because of the subsequent developments as also contended by the respondents and is accordingly dismissed. 6. As regards W.P(C) No.760 of 2015, the petitioner has challenged the temporary arrangements by which the respondent No.4, Gopimohon Maibam was authorised to sign/counter-sign all the bills relating to the office of the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-III, Thoubal vide order dated 3.9.2015 and also the order dated 4.9.2015 ordering the respondent No. 5, Dr.Y.Suraj Singh, Administrative Officer of the Directorate of Education (S) to sign/countersign the bills related to expenditures specified at Para 6 of the aforesaid order dated 4.9.2015 in respect of the office of the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-III, Thoubal. This Court is of the view that since the petitioner is no more posted in the office of the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-III, Thoubal District but has been posted by a subsequent order dated 31.12.2015 as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School at Churachandpur which posting the petitioner has not challenged, the challenge of the aforesaid orders is reduced merely to an academic exercise. Accordingly, this writ petition is also stands closed as infructuous in view of the subsequent developments of promotion and posting of the petitioner as the Vice Principal of a Hr. Sec. School in a different district. The posting of the petitioner as a Vice Principal of a Hr. Accordingly, this writ petition is also stands closed as infructuous in view of the subsequent developments of promotion and posting of the petitioner as the Vice Principal of a Hr. Sec. School in a different district. The posting of the petitioner as a Vice Principal of a Hr. Sec. School in a different district of Churachandpur has no nexus with the aforesaid orders issued in respect of the different district of Thoubal. 7. Mr.Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India & ors. & Narender Singh reported in (2005) 6 SCC 106 to contend that these writ petitions cannot be said to be infructuous merely because of the subsequent development of his promotion to the post of Vice Principal of a government Higher Secondary School as well as posting as the Vice Principal at Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School. In the said case of Narender Singh (supra), the facts in issue were that the respondent therein was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry and was dismissed from service, which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi which quashed and set aside the order of dismissal and directed that the respondent employee be reinstated in service. The said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Hon’ble High Court, considering the fact that the said respondent had been reinstated, took the view that as the Tribunal’s order has been already implemented, the petition had become infructuous and accordingly dismissed the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the ground that merely because the order of reinstatement had been implemented by the authority, it did not render the writ petition challenging the dismissal order as infructuous as the issue of validity and legality of the dismissal order remained to be decided. However, the fact situation in the present writ petition is entirely different. The petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition being W.P(C) No.506 of 2015 was serving as a Lecturer, as already observed above. Though he was entitled to challenge the transfer order dated 29.5.2015, which he could do, and this Court could have passed appropriate order regarding the validity of the said transfer order. The petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition being W.P(C) No.506 of 2015 was serving as a Lecturer, as already observed above. Though he was entitled to challenge the transfer order dated 29.5.2015, which he could do, and this Court could have passed appropriate order regarding the validity of the said transfer order. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, he had been promoted to the post of Vice Principal of a Govt. Higher Seconday school and transferred and posted as a Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School. Mr. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly stated before this Court that he is not aggrieved by the promotion order and the petitioner has not challenged his posting as the Vice Principal at Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School though he has reservations of the same. In absence of any challenge to the posting of the petitioner as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School vide order dated 31.12.2015, the petitioner has to remain as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School. In that view of the matter, as he has not challenged the said transfer order, this Court took the view that the issue of legality of the earlier transfer order dated 29.5.2015 raised by the petitioner would be a mere academic exercise, as even if the petitioner is successful in challenging the said transfer order, it would have no consequence, since the petitioner has been validly transferred and posted as Vice Principal of a Hr. Sec. School which he has not challenged. Hence, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the present case. 8. Mr.Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner further relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of A.P & Anr. vs. A.V.Venugopala Rao reported in (1995) 1 SCC 179 submits that incharge arrangement must be reasonable and with due regard to seniority. Hence, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the present case. 8. Mr.Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner further relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of A.P & Anr. vs. A.V.Venugopala Rao reported in (1995) 1 SCC 179 submits that incharge arrangement must be reasonable and with due regard to seniority. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid decision is also not applicable in the present case for the reason that since the petitioner has been already appointed as the Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School, whether the respondent No.4 or any other person has been validly appointed as an in-charge Zonal Education Officer of Thoubal District would be of no consequence to him unless his posting as Vice Principal of Vungzagen Hr.Sec.School is in any manner in conflict with the aforesaid in-charge arrangement to the post of ZEO, Thoubal, which this Court does not find to be so and as such, the aforesaid decision is also not applicable in the present case. 9. For similar reasons, these two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not applicable to the petition under W.P.(C) No. 760 of 2015. 10. In view of the above, both these writ petitions are dismissed as having no merit. All earlier interim orders, if there be, stand vacated.