JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. By the impugned order dated 01.09.2016, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the Resolution dated 20.12.2013 does not seem to be proper as it takes charge from the senior-most teacher and that it shall remain stayed till the next date of listing as far as it relates to giving the charge of Headmaster from the writ petitioner to respondent no. 9, who is much junior to the writ petitioner. 2. The appellants are the Committee of Management and respondent no. 9 referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. We heard Mr. M.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 1/writ petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, no doubt, would point out that there were good reasons for putting the second appellant in charge. It is the case of the appellants inter-alia that on 22.05.2013 the person next in seniority had declined to take charge and it was immediately thereafter that the second appellant was given the charge. It is the further case of the appellants that the institution is suffering on account of the writ petitioner being the in-charge of the educational institution and the learned Single Judge should not have passed the order, which, though is an order of stay, has the effect of a final order and therefore, it is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has also a case that the order dated 22.05.2013 has also not been challenged. 5. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 1/writ petitioner would contend that the writ petitioner was appointed directly to the post of Headmaster. He would also submit that he has already taken charge. 6. We would think that, in view of the fact that the matter relates to an educational institution and the post of Headmaster is a pivotal post, the matter should receive an expeditious disposal. Hence, while we do not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as such, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest and, if possible, within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 7. We record the submission of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 7. We record the submission of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 1/writ petitioner that he would also cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the case. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 9. Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued today itself.