JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff Dinesh Kumar Dubey against the judgment and decree dated 2nd July, 1986 claiming the following reliefs :- (i) declaring that the plaintiff is a confirmed Upper Division Teacher of the Gorakhpur Naveen Vidya Bhavan Higher Secondary School, Jabalpur and is entitled to pay scales and allowances admissible to the Upper Division Teachers with effect from 1.8.1978; (ii) for difference of salary and allowance amounting to Rs. 3051=80 from 1.4.1979 to 31.12.1981; (iii) for future difference of salary and allowances as may be admissible to the Upper Division Teachers. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact. The appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether by merely passing a Resolution appointing the plaintiff by promotion as Upper Division Teacher for a period of 11 months; without giving any written order of promotion, and taking work from the plaintiff as Upper Division Teacher, paying for some months the pay-scales meant for the Upper Division Teachers, and continuing to take work beyond the period resolved and even till today i.e. for more than 8 years; without-communicating any order of termination, reversion to the substantive post; can it be said that the plaintiff has been impliedly in continuous appointment for a period of more than 2 years ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is deemed to have been confirmed as per Regulation 71 of the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to emoluments as Upper Division Teacher by virtue of Sec. 70 of the Contract Act?" 2. Shri R.D. Hundikar, Advocate appeared for the appellant but no one appeared for the respondent. On 19.6.1995 the case was heard and the judgment was dictated in open Court but before it could get shape of the judgment something was pointed by the Private Secretary regarding the relief as stated in the order dated 20.6.1995. The said order is as extracted below :- "20.6.95. On 19.6.1995 the case was heard and the judgment was dictated in open Court but before it could get shape of the judgment something was pointed by the Private Secretary regarding the relief as stated in the order dated 20.6.1995. The said order is as extracted below :- "20.6.95. The statement made to the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the decision of the lower appellate Court that the appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court but the position after the dictation of the judgment when the matter was looked into it was discovered by my Private Secretary that relief which has been granted by this judgment has already been granted by the appellate Court. Since the judgment was dictated in the open Court and has not been signed and relief granted is the same as was granted by both the Courts below, let the matter be listed again showing the name of the learned counsel for the parties in the next week. In the memorandum of appeal after title clause learned counsel has written to the following effect :- "Claim valued at Rs. 7,000/- for declaration, and for difference of salary Rs. 3051=80 P." which is incorrect and misled the Court." On the aforesaid basis the case has come up for hearing today. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Regulation 71 of the M.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Regulations, the appellant would be deemed to have been confirmed as Upper Division Teacher though his appointment was as Lower Division Teacher. Regulation 71 is as extracted below :- "71. All Principles, Headmasters, Lecturers and teachers, except those appointed temporarily for a period of less than one year, shall be on probation for a terms of one year which may be extended to two years. If after two years of service any incumbent is continued in his appointment, he shall, unless the appointing authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, otherwise directs, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed in that appointment. On confirmation, the incumbent shall sign a contract of service in the form I or II (appended to these regulations) as the case may be as soon as practicable." Regulation 71 provides for a fiction but Court cannot create another fiction. On confirmation, the incumbent shall sign a contract of service in the form I or II (appended to these regulations) as the case may be as soon as practicable." Regulation 71 provides for a fiction but Court cannot create another fiction. It says that all Principles, Headmasters, Lecturers and teachers, except those appointed temporarily for a period of less than one year, shall be on probation for a term of one year which may be extended to two years and after the expiry of the extended period of service, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed, unless the appointing authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise directs. In the present case, the appellant-plaintiff was never appointed on probation for a term of one year in the grade of Upper Division Teacher and in such a situation there is no question or occasion of extension of the probation period. His appointment on the post of Upper Division Teacher was temporarily for a period less than one year. Regulation 71 is accordingly not applicable. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. Secondly the learned counsel for the appellant addressed the Court on substantial questions No. (i) and (iii), which are inter-linked. 5. The trial Court framed the Issue No.8 to the following effect:- ^^8- D;k oknh izfroknh ls fn- 1-4-79 ls 31-12-81 rd dk osru dk varj (Difference of Salary) :- 3051¾80 iSls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ On this issue the trial Court considered and recorded finding that on account of Ex. P/2 the plaintiff is entitled for salary of Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 1.8.1978 to March, 1979 and this fact was admitted by the defendant. Regarding the entitlement of the appellant for the salary for the subsequent period, the trial Court recorded finding that according to Ex. P/1, the plaintiff was promoted as Upper Division Teacher upto 30th June, 1979 and, therefore, w.e.f. April, 1979 to June, 1979 he is entitled for the salary of the Upper Division Teacher. Regarding the entitlement of the appellant for the salary for the subsequent period, the trial Court recorded finding that according to Ex. P/1, the plaintiff was promoted as Upper Division Teacher upto 30th June, 1979 and, therefore, w.e.f. April, 1979 to June, 1979 he is entitled for the salary of the Upper Division Teacher. For the subsequent period i.e. the period from July, 1979 to 31st December, 1981, the Court recorded finding that it has not been established by the evidence that the plaintiff was permanently continued on the post of Upper Division Teacher subsequent to the period 30th June, 1979 and on this basis the Court allowed the salary of Upper Division Teacher upto June, 1979 and recorded finding that he is not entitled for salary subsequent to this period and the claim as made by the plaintiff did not find favour with the Court. The lower appellate Court has not interfered with the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed the same. 6. The present is the forum of second appeal where the law has circumscribed scope of interference. The finding of fact cannot be interfered with as is in the present case. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to any relief even on the basis of substantial questions No. (i) and (iii). 7. In view of above, I find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Since nobody has appeared to oppose. I made no order as to costs.