JUDGMENT S. C. Mathur, J. - The petitioner Rakesh Kumar Srivastava has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order of termination of his service from the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in A. H. Inter College, Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur. Neither the original order of termination of service has been filed nor a copy thereof. It has been stated that no order has been served on the petitioner. 2. The relief has been claimed on the following allegations : "The petitioner is M. Sc., B. Ed., and was appointed to the post in question on 12-8-1985. For regular appointment to the post in question the Education Commission advertised the vacancy on 17-t2-1988 and sent a panel of three names to the concerned institution but none of them joined the post and the petitioner continued to discharge the duties of the post. Although no selected candidate has become available he has come to know that he is being removed from service. On inquiries this fact has been confirmed. The petitioner is entitled to regularisation on the post in question under Section 33-A of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act." 3. Opposite parties in the writ petition are (1) District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur and (2) Managing Committee, A. H. Inter College, Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur. 4. By order, dated 17-5-1989 notice was directed to be issued to opposite party No. 2, notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1 having been accepted by the learned standing counsel. It appears that in pursuance of the order steps were taken by the petitioner and notice was issued for 28-9-1989. However, neither any service report has been made by the office nor any appearance has been put in on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Instead application for impleadment has been made an behalf of Maheudra Narain - C. M. Application No. 13679 (w) of 1"89. Copy of the said application was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 12-9-1989 but till date no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. On 17-5-1989 when the writ petition was filed the following interim order was passed i "Meanwhile the opposite parties shall retain the petitioner in service as teacher till a regularly selected teacher is selected and submits his joining report." This interim order is still in operation. 6. 5. On 17-5-1989 when the writ petition was filed the following interim order was passed i "Meanwhile the opposite parties shall retain the petitioner in service as teacher till a regularly selected teacher is selected and submits his joining report." This interim order is still in operation. 6. In his impleadment application Sri Mahendra Narain has pointed out that he has a reserve pool teacher of district Pratapgarh but later he was placed in tho list of reserve pool teachers of district Sultanpur and by letter, dated 8-11-1988 the District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur directed applicant's absorption on the post in question. Despite this order the applicant could not get appointment and the District Inspector of Schools, for short D. I. O S., informed him through letter, dated 20-1-1989 that the petitioner had obtained stay order from this Court. Thereafter the applicant moved application for impleadment in Writ Petition No. 8531 of 1988 filed by the petitioner prior to the present writ petition. The application for impleadment was made on 19-7-1989 and the applicant came to know subsequently that on the said date itself the petitioner get the said writ petition dismissed as not pressed. The applicant obtained certified copy of the order, dated 19-7-1989 and again pressed his claim for absorption. The D. I. O. S., through his communication, dated 19-8-1989 informed the applicant that the petitioner has again obtained stay order from the High Court. The applicant points out that on account of successive interim orders obtained by the petitioner, he is not getting appointment to the post in question. He insinuates suppression of material fact by the petitioner. According to the applicant he is entitled to be impleaded as interim order of this Court is causing prejudice to him. 7. In view of the above assertion of the applicant we summoned the Paper Book of Writ Petition No. 8531 of 1988 and examined the same. Examination of the paper book shows that the petitioner's claim in that petition was the same as in the present petition. In that ca3e also the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to regularisation of his service and that he had come to know that the Management was proceeding to terminate his service arbitrarily. Like the present petition, in the earlier petition also termination order was not filed. In that ca3e also the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to regularisation of his service and that he had come to know that the Management was proceeding to terminate his service arbitrarily. Like the present petition, in the earlier petition also termination order was not filed. On 28-10-1988 interim order was passed in the earlier writ petition (W. P. No. 8531 of 1988) in the following terms . "................................ Till that date the petitioner shall be allowed to work on the post in question and will obviously be paid his salary," On 23-2-1989 the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 8531 of 1988 w is modified and it was provided that "until further orders it is provided that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue until duly selected candidate or a teacher from reserve pool is available for the post." 8. It is not clear whether the above order was communicated to the opposite parties or not. On 18-7-1989 the petitioner moved application in the earlier writ petition for dismissing the same as not pressed. Neither any reason was disclosed for not pressing the writ petition nor permission was sought to file fresh petition. The application was allowed the same day and the petition was dismissed. In paragraph 5 of the earlier writ petition it is stated "the District Inspector of Schools Lias been directed to issue a letter of appointment by absorption in A. H. Inter College, Musafirkhaua, district Sultanpur". From this it appears that the petitioner got scent of the fact that the applicant was going to replace him. This inference is strengthened from the earlier averment made in the said paragraph-5 of the earlier writ petition, It is stated therein "that the opposite party No. 2 was originally ordered to be absorbed in Bharkhere Inter College but the Hon'ble High Court stayed his appointment by absorption In letter dated 25-8-1987, Annexure No. 3 to the impleadment application from D. I. O, S. Pratapgrah to D. I. O. S., Sultanpur transferring the applicant's name from Pratapgrah to Sultanpur against the name of the applicant is mentioned "Inter College Bharkhere, Sultanpur". Despite the knowledge that the applicant will by affected by the order passed in the writ petition the petitioner did not implead him in either of the two petitions. Despite the knowledge that the applicant will by affected by the order passed in the writ petition the petitioner did not implead him in either of the two petitions. The modified interim order dated 23-2-1989 passed in the earlier writ petition did not give any benefit to the petitioner as the applicant was a reserve pool teacher. It is apparent that it was for this reason that the petitioner got the earlier writ petition dismissed After getting the earlier writ petition dismissed the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 17-5-1989 and got the interim order referred to hereinabove. In the instant writ petition there is no reference at all to the earlier writ petition. This conduct of the petitioner is most unfair and he obtained the interim order dated 17-5-1989 by practising fraud upon this Court. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any hearing. He has undeservedly continued on the post in question atleast from 17-5-1989. Ordinarily we would have directed the petitioner to refund the salary undeservedly drawn by him and be paid to the applicant. However, we are taking a lenient view of the matter and direct only compensatory costs to be paid by the petitioner to the applicant. 9. In view of the above the petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay compensatory costs of Rs. 1000 (rupees one thousand) to the applicant Mahendra Narain Singh. This amount shall be paid to Sri Mahendra Narain Singh within one month from today. The petitioner is warned that disobedience of there direction will amount to contempt of Court.