Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "quashing of the order contained in memo No.333 as also for a direction to allow the petitioner to join his post as he was doing before. " 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. By reason of an offer of appointment as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed in the post of clerk in Government subsidised Girls High School, Bettiah. According to the petitioner he joined the said post on 11-1-1979 but the District Education Officer (respondent No.2) by a latter dated 3-3-1979 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition directed with-holding of the payment of a salary of the petitioner on the ground that one b. K. Verma has preferred appeal before the Board. As the petitioner did not get his salary he filed several representations. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit which was decreed by a judgment dated 19-8-80 and as contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition but inspite of the aforementioned decree, no payment was made to the petitioner though he continued to work in the said post. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an Execution case. It is not known what has been happened in the Execution Case. It may be mentioned that the respondent No.2 filed a petition for review in the aforementioned Title Suit for reviewing the judgment aforementioned case which was also dismissed by an order dated 22-7-81 on the ground that the same was time barred. By reason of Annexure 7 to the writ petition it has been directed that the aforementioned b. K. Verma should be allowed to join and be paid the salary allegedly on the ground that there was only one sanctioned past in th3 said school. It is strange that inspite of the decree passed by a competent court of law and although the same has become final by and between the parties thereto the impugned order as contained in Annsxure 7 to the writ petition has been passed. 4. Evidently the State of Bihar could not have passed an order whereby the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Courts is sought to be set at naught. 4. Evidently the State of Bihar could not have passed an order whereby the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Courts is sought to be set at naught. Even if the petitioner was appointed by reason of some mistaken facts appropriate action ought to have taken under the conditions of service or under the appropriate rules but while taking work from the petitioner the state could not have denied the due salary to him, more so when a decree had already been passed in favour of she petitioner. 5. In the result this writ petition is allowed and Annexure 7 to the writ petition is hereby quashed to the extent to the same affects prejudicially to the interest of the petitioner. The respondents are also directed to treat the petitioner as its employee and pay salary to him in accordance with law. Petition allowed.