Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52808-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 176 of 2025 Appellant :- Chandrabhan Yadav Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gautam Baghel Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Azaz Ahmad,C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Appellant was working as Officiating Headmaster in a Junior High School, which allegedly was upgraded to High School and Intermediate level. The District Basic Education Officer treating the institution to be a Junior High School approved the appointment of respondent no.6. Aggrieved by such appointment and approval, the appellant approached this Court in the year 2010. An order of status quo was passed in the matter. It is undisputed that respondent no.6 continued as Headmaster and has also received salary. Learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the writ petition on the ground that the appellant since has already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2014, he cannot be granted any relief. 2. Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petition was filed in the year 2010 and the cause available then is liable to be examined on merits. It is also submitted that the controversy on merits stands adjudicated on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Manju Awasthi and others Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2013 (3) ADJ 64. This judgment has been followed in Rana Vijendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2019 (2) ADJ 542. 3. Sri R.K. Ojha, appearing for the respondent no.6 states that it was not a case of upgradation of Junior High School, rather there are two separate and distinct institutions run by the same Managing Committee. One of the institution is a Junior High School, whereas the other is an Intermediate College. The Junior High School has a Headmaster working as the head of the institution, whereas in the intermediate institution it has the Principal, who is appointed and working. It is, therefore, submitted that Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Manju Awasthi (supra) has no applicability. 4. Be that as it may, we find substance in the view taken by learned Single Judge not to interfere in the matter, particularly when the appellant has superannuated in the year 2014. Between 2010 to 2014 the respondent no.6 had worked as Headmaster and he has also received salary. In such circumstances, no relief can now be granted to the appellant, even if his case is accepted. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere in the matter at the instance of present appellant and, consequently, the special appeal is consigned to records. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad