( 1 ) ONE Smt. Paliwal was appointed as Incharge Head Mistress of the School by the order dated 17th May, 75. The petitioner had challenged the said appointment on the ground that she is legally entitled to be appointed as Incharge Head Mistress as well as on account of her qualification as regular Head Mistress. The clalm petition was allowed in part in the manner following :- "in the circumstances, the clalm petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17. 5. 1975, passed by the Basic Shiksha adhikari appointing Smt. Paliwal, opposite party no. 3 as Incharge Head Mistress, is declared in effective being without jurisdiction and is quashed. The petitioner is also declared to be the Incharge Head mistress as of the Senior Basic Balika vidyalaya, Devai with effect from 30. 6. 1972 but the opposite party no. 1 is directed to hold the selection for the post of Head Mistress expeditiously in accordance with the rules and consider the clalm of the petitioner also for the post the plea of granting arrears to any of the petitioner treating her as regular Head mistress is, however, rejected. " ( 2 ) THIS order was challenged by Smt. Paliwal in Writ Petition no. 5029 of 1980. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 17th June, 97 by dismissing the writ petition and, thereby, affirming the order of the learned public Service Tribunal. In the said order, certain observations were made, which may be quoted herein below:- "in that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be however no order as to costs. " However, it is observed that the question of seniority, which was not subject matter in the clalm petition before the Tribunal shall remain open to be decided in accordance with law in between the parties in future. "the fact remains that a stop gap arrangement appears to continue till today. It is a matter of grant regret that the result of regular selection has not been declared. The direction contained in the order of the learned Tribunal quoted above with regard to selection should be implemented forthwith. "the fact remains that a stop gap arrangement appears to continue till today. It is a matter of grant regret that the result of regular selection has not been declared. The direction contained in the order of the learned Tribunal quoted above with regard to selection should be implemented forthwith. " ( 3 ) AFTER the said order was passed, the petitioner moved an application on 9th September, 97 clalming the following reliefs :- "under the circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing the respondents to treat the respondent/applicant as regular Head Mistress of Sr. Basic Girls junior High School Devai, District bulandshahr and pay her service emoluments as such including the arrears w. e. f. 1. 7. 72 till upto now and direct the respondents not to hold further selection on the post. An in alternative, be pleased to direct the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bulandshahr to pay to the respondent applicant all service amoluments as Head Mistress w. e. f. 1. 7. 72 till upto now and continue to pay the same every month till she hold the post of Head Mistress, including annual increments, pay revision etc. " The said application was dismissed with the following observations:-"a perusal of the aforesaid prayer indicates that such relief cannot be granted by this court after the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17. 7. 1997, on the Basic of this to recall the order dated 17. 7. 1997. On the other hand, same relieves, which are being clalmed in this application, can be clalmed in writ petition. Such relief cannot be granted in this petition as no review of the order dated 9. 9. 1997 is sought for. The application fails and is accordingly dismissed. " Now a fresh writ petition has been filed by the petitioner clalming the following relieves:-" (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to the post of Regular Head Mistress in Senior balika Vidyalaya, Dewai, District bulandshahr w. e. f. 14. 5. 1979 or 29. 5. 1980 as the case may be, and also entitled to her amoluments as Head Mistress. 5. 1979 or 29. 5. 1980 as the case may be, and also entitled to her amoluments as Head Mistress. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been appointed regular Head Mistress of the institution from the date on which the selection committee submitted its report. (iii) any other suitable, writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) allow the writ petition of the petitioner with cost throughout. " I have heard Mr. Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. ( 4 ) IT appears that the relief which the petitioner had clalmed in the clalm petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, was partly allowed. The said order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court. The petitioner could not have clalmed any relief, which she had asked for by means of her application dated 9th September, 97 in a writ petition filed by Smt. Paliwal particularly when the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, which was the cause of action for the earlier writ petition filed by smt. Paliwal in this writ petition, no fresh cause of action has been pleaded. On the other hand, the very cause of action on which the clalm petition had proceeded, has been sought to be achieved through this fresh writ petition. The petitioner having an order in her favour passed by the learned Tribunal, cannot ask for any further order from this Court. The court is not supposed to pass infructuous orders nor it can go on repeating its orders. If there is no scope for the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, in that event she cannot clalm to have any cause of action in maintaining such writ petition before this court. The court is not supposed to pass infructuous orders nor it can go on repeating its orders. If there is no scope for the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, in that event she cannot clalm to have any cause of action in maintaining such writ petition before this court. ( 5 ) SECTION 5 sub-section (7) of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 provides "that the order of the Tribunal finally disposing of a reference shall be executed in the same manner in which any final order of the State Government or other authority or officer or other person comp-etent to pass such order under the relevant service rules as to redrossal of grievances in any appeal preferred or representation made by the clalmant in connection with any matter relating to his employment to which the reference relates would have been executed. " The Tribunal is also empowered to exercise the powers conferred on the High Court under the Contempt of Courts"act, 1971 by virtue of section 5a of the said Act, which provides "that the Tribunal shall and exercise, jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as the High Court has, and may exercise, in respect of contempt of itself, and for this purpose the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 shall, mutaties mutandis, apply subject to the following modifications, contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. Such moficications were incorporated only to enable the application of the Contempt of courts Act,1971 mutatis mutandis so far as the Tribunal is concerned. Thus it appears that the Tribunal was capable of executing in award if occasions so arises. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prakash Gupta though had alleged that despite the order of the Tribunal and that of this Court dated 17th July, 97 passed in the earlier writ petition, the respondents did not take steps for implementing the award of the tribunal. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus so that the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted. ( 7 ) IT appears that the relief sought for can very well be obtained through the execution/ implementation of the award of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus so that the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted. ( 7 ) IT appears that the relief sought for can very well be obtained through the execution/ implementation of the award of the learned Tribunal. By no stretch of imagination, the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution could be stretched for the purpose of execution of the award of the Public Service Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. The High Court cannot be treated to be an executing court for the purpose of execution of an award passed by a subordinate Tribunal. Though it was not so submitted by Mr. Gupta but the effect of issuing a mandamuse in the present writ petition would be that of executing the award of the Tribunal. Though Mr. Gupta has coined his submission in such manner to avoid such interpretation but if one delves deep into his submission having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that in the guise of issuing mandamus, the High Court will be in effect executing the award of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized for such an oblique purpose if there are specific remedy available and open to the petitioner in obtaining the award executed. ( 8 ) SINCE the Tribunal itself is capable of executing its own award, therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the tribunal or should have taken steps for getting the award of the tribunal executed in the manner provided in Section 5 sub-section (7) or such other manner as is provided under law and as the petitioner may be advised to take resort to. ( 9 ) NOWHERE in the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner had taken any steps to get the award implemented in any manner whatsoever. On the other hand, it is being contended that the respondents despite the existance of the award and the order of this court passed on 17th July,97, has not taken any steps. The momonent the award is affirmed, the award becomes executable finally since the order of the Tribunal becomes final by the affirmation of the said order and becomes capable of being executed. The momonent the award is affirmed, the award becomes executable finally since the order of the Tribunal becomes final by the affirmation of the said order and becomes capable of being executed. Therefore, it was open to the petitioner to apply for execution of such award instead of repeatedly coming to this Court and seeking to invoke writ jurisdiction on the same cause of action time and again through inappropriate process or in other words, in abuse of process. ( 10 ) IN such circumstances, as observed above, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly dismissed. No costs. This order, however, will not prevent the petitioner from getting the award executed in accordance with law. If the petitioner approaches the authority or the forum, as the case may be, and takes steps for execution of the award according to law, the same may be decided expeditionary. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition dismissed. .