A. K. YOG, J. Present petition has been filed by one Madan Ji Pathak seeking writ officer torero to quash the order dated September 22, 1994 (Annexure-7) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria in compliance to the direction given by this Court vide judgment and order dated August 10, 1994 in Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 22165 of 1990 (Madan Ji Pathak v. State of U. P and others (Aimexure-6 ). 2. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 3. The main dispute culminating into judgment and order dated August 10,1994 (Annexure-4) passed by Honble Mr. Jus tice Sudhir Narain, was regarding petitioner being qualified on having passed Intermediate Examination prior to his appointment as Assistant Teacher in the School. The dispute was as to whether petitioner had passed Intermediate Ex amination of U. P. Board in the year 1987 when he claimed to have been attached with the College (Class VI to XII) that is above primary section. Initially Schools was not getting aid and it appears that on getting grant-in-aid, the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh High Schools And Inter mediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, 1971 became applicable and the issue as sumed importance. As a consequence whereof the then District Inspector of Schools submitted its inspection report and purported to have found that petitioner has not passed Intermediate Examination in the year 1987. This decision of the District Inspector of Schools led to the filing of earlier writ petition and in the said writ petition judg ment and order dated August 10, 1994 (Annexure-6) was passed. In compliance, to the said direction of the Court, the Dis trict Inspector of Schools has passed im pugned order dated September 22, 1994 (Annexure-7 ). 4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that District Inspector of Schools has not specifically referred to the issue, namely, the Marks Sheet and the Certifi cate produced by the petitioner were genuine or not. The District Inspector of schools has observed that Intermediate Examination Certificate of 1987 (An- nexure-5) was not produced at the time of inspection and that the copy of the Marks Sheet dated April 25, 1990 (Annexure-4) shows that the petitioner claimed requisi te academic qualification in the year 1990. The District Inspector of schools has observed that Intermediate Examination Certificate of 1987 (An- nexure-5) was not produced at the time of inspection and that the copy of the Marks Sheet dated April 25, 1990 (Annexure-4) shows that the petitioner claimed requisi te academic qualification in the year 1990. The District Inspector of Schools ob served that Intermediate Examination Certificate, 1987 was not shown at the time of inspection and hence salary was not approved and presently Marks Sheet dated April 25,1990 shows that he passed Intermediate Examination in 1990. The District Inspector of Schools, however, denied payment of salary for the period during 1987 to 1990 and held that there was surplus staff keeping in view the strength of students. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 it is noted that the parties have sought to widen the controversy by raising several issues without deciding the relevant issue in compliance to the High Courts order dated August 10, 1994 (Annexure-6 ). Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have asserted that petitioner did not possess requisite qualification (namely he had not passed Intermediate Examination) at the time of his appointment in the year 1987 and hence there was no question of his getting salary as such and that the College Management had never appointed the petitioner as such. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed in the present petition, it appears, Management has taken different stands and tried to shift his position. No reliance can be placed on the case pleaded by the Management. 7. It may be noted that the Inter mediate Examination Certificate (An-nexure-5) bears Roll No. 239346 and it is dated 8th June, 1987. The Intermediate Marks Sheet (Annexure-4) is dated 25th April, 1990 and relates to some other Roll Number. The first three digits in the Roll Number mentioned in the Marks Sheet are different and do not tally with the three digits in the Roll Number given in the Certificate. There is no explanation as to why Marks Sheet (Annexure-4) was issued on 25th April, 1990 when the Board had already issued the Certificate in 1987 (An-nexure-5 ). 8. In absence of relevant explanation it is not possible for this Court to come to a conclusion on its own. There is no explanation as to why Marks Sheet (Annexure-4) was issued on 25th April, 1990 when the Board had already issued the Certificate in 1987 (An-nexure-5 ). 8. In absence of relevant explanation it is not possible for this Court to come to a conclusion on its own. It is also noted that District Inspector of Schools has not decided the relevant issue keeping in mind the direction given by this Court in its judgment dated August 10, 1994 (An nexure-6 ). It is appropriate that matter be sent back to the District Inspector of Schools to determine all the issues, name ly, the genuineness of the Marks Sheet and the Certificate, (copies of which have been filed as Annexures-4 and 5), the actual date when petitioner has passed Inter mediate Examination of U. P. Board, the question of students strength and surplus staff and any other issue, which may be relevant but only after giving due notice and opportunity to the petitioner of these issues so that petitioner may meet the same. It may be noted that if staff was found surplus, the procedure for retrench ment had to be adopted which requires certain formalities to be observed. All these questions had to be adjudicated after giving opportunity to the concerned par ties. This having not been done, the im pugned order dated September 22, 1994 (Annexure-7) cannot be sustained. 9. The writ petition is allowed. Im pugned order dated September 22, 1994 (Annexure-7) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria (Respondent No. 1) is set aside with the direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide the matter, in the light of the observations made in this judgment, within four months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this judgment before him by any of the parties. In case, District Inspector of Schools decides the matter in favour of petitioner and finds that petitioner was eligible and qualified and is entitled to the salary for the past period, the same shall be paid to him within one month of passing of the said order The question of payment of future salary shall, however, be subject to the decision on the relevant issues as indicated above. Petitioner will be entitled to his salary, so long his services are not determined in accordance with law. Petitioner will be entitled to his salary, so long his services are not determined in accordance with law. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria within one week after obtaining certified copy. Petition allowed. .