ORDER : In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 02.01.2018 issued by the first Respondent at Annexure-D and another consequential order dated 05.01.2018 issued by the second Respondent at Annexure-F, whereby the fourth Respondent has been given the additional charge of the Office of the Principal of the School in question. 2. Brief facts stated are ; (a) Petitioner has been working as Mathematics Teacher since 04.06.2012 at Murarji Desai Model Residential School, Timmalapur Hospet Taluk in Bellari District. The fourth Respondent happens to be a Computer Teacher with effect from 11.06.2012 and thus, apparently he is junior to the Petitioner; (b) The Post of Principal in the School fell vacant with effect from 20.06.2016 since the regular incumbent Sri Yogesh H. has been transferred to the School in Shivamogga on personal request and that, the fourth Respondent has been given the Additional charge of the post of Principal by way of In-charge arrangement. The same is in challenge in this Writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri Narayana Yaji vehemently contends the Apex Court has ruled that the Principal is the conscience keeper of the educational institution ; the incumbent has onerous powers & responsibilities which he can properly discharge only if he has necessary eligibility and qualification prescribed by the Rules for appointment to the post of Principal ; any Tom, Dick and Harry cannot be made to sit in the post ; choice of the candidate should be preceded by the consideration of candidature of persons in the fray. 4. Mr. Narayan V. Yaji also contends that the Petitioner is senior to the fourth Respondent and that Petitioner is eligible and qualified for being promoted to the post Principal going by the norms and qualifications for appointment to that post. He further contends that the fourth Respondent apart from being Junior to the Petitioner is not eligible and qualified for being appointed/promoted to the post of Principal and therefore, Petitioner ought to have been given the post of Principal by way of In-charge arrangement. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Narayan V. Yaji in support of his contention banks upon the provisions of Rule 32 of KCSR relevant portion of which reads as under: “32. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Narayan V. Yaji in support of his contention banks upon the provisions of Rule 32 of KCSR relevant portion of which reads as under: “32. Instead of appointing a Government servant to officiate, it is also permissible to appoint him to be in charge of the current duties of a vacant post. In such a case a “charge allowance” (additional pay) is payable as specified in Rule 68. [Note1] – A Government servant can be appointed under this Rule to be in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post only if he is eligible to be promoted to officiate in that post according to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable to that post or if he is holding a post in an equivalent or higher grade] [Note 2] – The provisions of this Rule apply also to cases where a Government servant being relieved of his own appointment is appointed to be in independent charge of a higher appointment as a temporary measure]” 6. The learned counsel for the Respondents per contra submits that the arrangements like ‘In-charge’, ‘Independent charge’ and ‘Additional charge’ are well understood concepts in service jurisprudence; there is a marked difference between appointment by promotion and these arrangements. The counsel also contends that there is no cause of action for the Petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, since he has no justice able right. 7. I have considered the rival contentions advanced at the Bar. I have heard Sri Anthony R. Rodrigues, AGA for R1 & R3. The provisions of KCSR, the counsel for the Respondents submit, have not been adopted by the Murarji Desai Model Residential School. Therefore, the invocation of the provisions of KCSR is not justified. However, the underline Principle of the said Rule has to be kept in mind as rightly pointed out by counsel for the Petitioner. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Maridev (M. Mariyappa) Vs. State of Mysore and others reported in 1968 (1) Mys. L.J, page 325 has observed thus; “Officiating appointments, and in charge arrangements are well understood terms in civil service. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Maridev (M. Mariyappa) Vs. State of Mysore and others reported in 1968 (1) Mys. L.J, page 325 has observed thus; “Officiating appointments, and in charge arrangements are well understood terms in civil service. When an officer is appointed to officiate in a higher appointment, he is invested with the powers of the higher post, but when he is placed in charge of the current duties of a vacant post in a higher appointment, whether in addition to his own duties or independently, he cannot exercise any of the statutory powers of the office : he can merely perform the day to day office duties only” 9. The Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 1145 has observed thus; “Asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. In such a case he does not get the salary of the higher post, but gets only than in service parlance is called a “charge allowance”. Such situations are contemplated where exigencies of public service necessitate such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it. The person continues to hold his substantive lower post and only discharges the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement”. 10. In view of this settled legal position it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the action of the Respondents in placing the fourth Respondent in the Additional Charge of the Office of Principal of the School in question. However, this does not mean the Respondents can be arbitrary and unreasonable in the matter of identifying the candidates for the purpose of In-charge or Independent charge arrangement. The action of the Respondents-Authorities should be animated by reason, justice and fair play, which the impugned orders apparently lack. 11. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. However, this does not mean the Respondents can be arbitrary and unreasonable in the matter of identifying the candidates for the purpose of In-charge or Independent charge arrangement. The action of the Respondents-Authorities should be animated by reason, justice and fair play, which the impugned orders apparently lack. 11. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. (i) The Petitioner is permitted to make within two weeks a representation to the Respondent-Authorities to review the impugned orders whereby the fourth Respondent is given Additional charge of the post of Principal by way of In-charge arrangement; (ii) If such representation is made the Respondents-Authorities shall review the impugned orders dated 02.01.2018 and 05.01.2018 at Annexures-D & F to the Writ Petition, within next three weeks, failing which the said impugned orders automatically stand rescinded.