JUDGMENT Tiwari, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 6th March, 1990 passed in Civil Rule No. 9328(W) of 1982 by Mr. Dilip Kumar Basu, J. 2. The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was appointed on 24th September, 1974 as Assistant Teacher on probation for two years on usual scale and allowances with effect from 1.7.1974 in Punchopota Purbapara Free Primary School. The Director of Public Instruction vide his letter dated 3.10.1974 directed the District School Board to investigate into the allegation that the writ petitioner remains absent from the school and is not an organizing teacher. Until the conclusion of enquiry all future payments of salary to petitioner were also stopped. 3. The petitioner filed C.R. No. 11986(W) of 1976 and challenged the impugned letter (Annexure 'D' to the petition) and obtained an ad interim rule. But the same was discharged on 28th April, 1977 and the writ application was dismissed for technical reasons. C. R. No. 6779(W) of 1974 had been filed by one Jadunath Biswas challenging the appointment of petitioner as Assistant Teacher. The Court directed the authorities to enquire and pass necessary orders in the matter. Enquiry was duly held and it was found that the petitioner was an organizing teacher. 4. On 20th January, 1982, the Director of Primary Education directed the school authorities to release the salary of the petitioner but the salary was not released. Hence, the petition. 5. On 29th July, 1982 an interim order for release of salary was passed by the learned trial Court. 6. The appellant contested the writ application and refuted the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner's services had already been terminated in the year 1976. It was also contended that the petitioner had already tendered his resignation. It was further contended that the petitioner did not apply for recall of the order of the dismissal of his writ application filed in the year 1976 (C. R. No. 11986(W) of 1976). Hence, the present writ application was barred by the principles of res judicata. The learned trial Judge allowed this application and issued necessary directions. Hence, this appeal. 7. A copy of the writ application filed in the year 1976 has been handed over to us by the writ petitioner. Hence, the present writ application was barred by the principles of res judicata. The learned trial Judge allowed this application and issued necessary directions. Hence, this appeal. 7. A copy of the writ application filed in the year 1976 has been handed over to us by the writ petitioner. we find that in the said writ application petitioner bad only challenged the withholding of salary and enquiry proceedings initiated by the Director vide his letter dt. 3.10.l974. Hence, the dismissal of earlier writ application does not operate as res judicata. 8. An enquiry into the said allegations were carried out in pursuance to the directions given by this Court, in the writ application filed by one Jadunath Biswas (C.O. No. 6779 (W) of 1974) and it was found that petitioner's appointment was valid. Annexure 'D' to the present writ petition is the letter of the Director, Primary Education, West Bengal dated 17th September, 1979, wherein it had been categorically stated that the approval of appointment already accorded by the Directorate in favour of Sushil Kumar Banik and petitioner and Brojendra Nath Tikadar shall stand and their salaries must be released immediately. This letter' was addressed to the Secretary of the Ad-hoc Committee of appellant's school. It, therefore, follows that the allegation that the petitioner had resigned from the service in the year 1970 or that he regularly remained absent from the school in the year 1970 do not merit any consideration. Annexure 'A' to the writ application is the letter from the Directorate of Primary Education which is dated 20th January, 1982 further directing the school authorities to release the petitioner's salary. In spite of these specific directions the appellant and the school authorities are flouting the same. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner's services were ever terminated by any legal order. We, therefore, are of the views that this appeal is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with costs. The appellant appears to have preferred this futile appeal on account of personal vendetta is directed to pay the cost of the respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner). Counsel fees is quantified at 200GMs. Chatterjee, J.: I agree.