A. K. YOG, J. Present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 16-8-1980 (Annexure-X) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and also order dated 11-9-1979 referred in the said order of the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (An nexure-X) and also another order dated 20-2-1975 passed by District Inspector of Schools directing to stop, payment of salary. Petitioner also sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing opposite parties to treat the petitioner in the lecturers grade since 1951 and pay him the salary accordingly. 2. Petitioner pleaded that he was ap pointed as Teacher (Sanskrit) in Public English School, Manauri, Allahabad (hereinafter called Institution ). When In stitution was allowed Inter Classes, petitioner was required to teach Sanskrit in Inter Classes. Petitioner received salary as lecturer for some time, but sub sequently it was stopped under the im pugned order dated 20-2-1975 on the ground that petitioner did not possess req uisite educational qualification. District Inspector of Schools also withheld the ap proval in favour of the petitioners ap pointment as Lecturer. As a consequence thereof, another order dated 16-8-1980 (Annexure-10) was issued by District In spector of Schools directing for realization of excess payment, if any received by the petitioner as Lecturer Le. difference of emoluments between the pay scale of As sistant Teacher (L. T Grade) and the pay scale of Lecturer. 3. Surendra Narain Pandey, another Teacher, who claims to have been ap pointed by promotion on the post of Lec turer (Sanskrit) in the institution filed an impalement application and it having been allowed, he has been imp leaded as Respondent No. 3 in the present petition. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on one hand and Respondent No. 3, on the other hand filed separate counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. 5. In the instant case an interim order dated 17-10-1984 was passed in favour of the petitioner subject to certain condi tions like security etc. . By a subsequent order dated 5-11-1984 this Court provided that the earlier interim order dated 17-10-1984 shall be available to the petitioner only if no person was duly appointed on the post in question before passing of the order and in case some other person was already appointed, petitioner was not to get benefit of the interim order. 6. . By a subsequent order dated 5-11-1984 this Court provided that the earlier interim order dated 17-10-1984 shall be available to the petitioner only if no person was duly appointed on the post in question before passing of the order and in case some other person was already appointed, petitioner was not to get benefit of the interim order. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I find that the present petition can be decided, without adjudicating on the issues on merits, in the manner herein below. 7. The petitioner has himself filed copy of letter dated 12-12-1989 (Annexure RA-7) issued by District Inspector of Schools addressed to the Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad Region. Al lahabad and therein it is mentioned that the impugned order passed by District In spector of Schools dated 16-8- 1980 (An nexure 10) has been rescinded. Perusal of RA-7 of the rejoinder affidavit further shows that District Inspector of Schools observed that no amount should be recovered from the petitioner as the emoluments received by him during the relevant period 1967 of February 1975 in L. T. Grade as Assistant Teacher were not more than what petitioner could get in the Lecturers Grade and, therefore, no amount could be said to be due which could be recovered. In view of the said letter of the District Inspector of Schools, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no grievance of the petitioner, on this score, survives for adjudication. 8. The grievance of the petitioner, at the moment, remains regarding his entit lement of working of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the Institution from March, 1975 to June 30,1986 and on that basis his claim of receiving salary in the Lecturers Grade treating him as Lecturer. In this respect petitioner has filed several documents along with the rejoinder affidavit filed in reply to the counter-affidavit of Respon dent No. 3. On behalf of respondent an objection is being taken that new docu ments filed along with the rejoinder af fidavit cannot be looked into. Since copy of the rejoinder affidavit was served on learned counsel for Respondent long back (in the case of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 7-5-1999 and in the case of Respondent No. 3 in the year 1997 as stated by Dr. R. S. Drivedi, Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner ). Since copy of the rejoinder affidavit was served on learned counsel for Respondent long back (in the case of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 7-5-1999 and in the case of Respondent No. 3 in the year 1997 as stated by Dr. R. S. Drivedi, Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner ). Supplementary counter-affidavit could be brought on record to meet new averments and the documents brought through rejoinder affidavits. Keeping in view of the fact that the present petition is pending since 1980 and that various documents filed by and on behalf of the Respondents in their counter- af fidavit shows contradictory and shifting stands taken by the educational authorities e. g. , District Inspector of Schools concerned. The Court is unable to have a clear picture or to believe and/or disbelieve the version of either of the par ties. In this respect reference may be made to Annexure CA-15 (filed along with counter-affidavit of Respondent No. 3) vis-a-vis Annexure 5 to the rejoinder af fidavit filed along with the rejoinder af fidavit in reply thereto. Similar in the posi tion when one looks at the enquiry report of the District Inspector of Schools An nexure RA-6 annexed along with the rejoinder affidavit filed in reply to the counter-affidavit of Respondent No. 3 vis a-vis Annexure 10 which is order of the District Inspector of Schools rejecting petitioners representation regarding his appointment in Lecturers Grade. 9. In this context it may be stated that if the Annexure filed along with the writ petition are read along with the other Annexure filed along with the counter-af fidavit of Respondent No. 3 it becomes clear that on one hand the District Inspec tor of Schools refused to accord approval to the petitioner in Lecturers Grade on the ground that he did not possess requisi te minimum educational qualifications re quired at the relevant time and, on the other hand, District Inspector of Schools had granted approval to Respondent No. 3, though on ad/roc/temporary basis and the said order was also subsequently suspended to the condition that the said order of approval dated 30-4-1984 and subsequent by order dated 22-9-1984 (RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit) shall be subject to final result in the present writ petition, etc. 10. 10. It is not safe to go into these questions relating to facts which may re quire findings on assessment of evidence while deciding case in exercise of jurisdic tion under Article 226, Constitution of India. 11. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as well as in view of the stand taken by all the counsels appearing in the present case, who agree that the question of appointment by promotion in favour of the petitioner or that of Respon dent No. 3 may not be adjudicated on the basis of the material filed by the parties in the writ petition and that it will be ap propriate that Joint Director of Secondary Education at Allahabad may decide the said issue after affording opportunity to the concerned parties including the Com mittee of Management of the Institution. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsels representing the parties and in the circumstances indicated above the Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition may be disposed of subject to the following directions: (1) There shall be no recovery of the amount on the ground of excess payment against the petitioner keeping in view the order issued by District Inspector of Schools dated 2-12-1989 (Annexure RA-7) to the affidavit of Amar Nath Mishra. (2) Amar Nath Mishra (petitioner) and Surendra Narain Pandey, Respondent No. 3 shall appear before Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Allahabad on 15-6-1999 along with their representations containing detailed pleading in respect of their respective claims. Said authority shall proceed to hear and decide the matter in accordance with law. (3) The authority shall get the copies of the representations exchanged on date. There after parties shall be allowed time to file evidence by submitting list of documents. (4) The authority shall also, if deemed appropriate, summon concerned original record and thereafter fix date for personal hearing of the parties including the Committee of Manage ment. (5) After affording opportunity of hear ing, Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad concerned shall decide the matter by a speaking order as early as possible, preferably not more than four months, to be computed from 15th June, 1999. (6) Copy of the aforesaid order shall be communicated to the parties concerned by registered post acknowledgment due on the ad dresses given in their representations. 12. (6) Copy of the aforesaid order shall be communicated to the parties concerned by registered post acknowledgment due on the ad dresses given in their representations. 12. The writ petition is finally dis posed of, subject to the above directions. Petition disposed of. .