JUDGMENT B. K. Rathi, J.—Request has been to punish the opposite parties for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 31.8.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37093 of 1999. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : “One Keshav Singh was working as Head Master of the School. On his retirement on 30.6.1991 the post of head master became vacant. On that post the senior most teacher, Sudama Tiwari was appointed on ad hoc basis. Sri Sudama Tiwari was L. T. grade teacher. His post fell vacant and in the short term vacancy the management of the school appointed the petitioner under II Removal of Difficulties Order after advertisement of the post on 10.9.1991. The appointment letter was issued on 9.12.1991 and the petitioner joined on 10.12.1991 and was working on that post.” 3. The papers of the petitioner were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as “D.I.O.S.”) for approval but no order was passed by the D.I.O.S. The petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition in this Court. In that writ petition, the D.I.O.S. was directed to decide the matter within two months. The D.I.O.S. decided the matter and passed an speaking order on 25.8.1994 in favour of the petitioner granting financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 to the petition. However, the new D.I.O.S. stopped the payment of salary of the petitioner from July, 1995 and asked the management to submit the papers pertaining to the appointment and approval of the petitioner. The papers were submitted by the management of the school but no order has been passed by the D.I.O.S. He started enquiry regarding which the report, Annexure-4 was submitted by the Accounts Officer. No order was passed on that report and, therefore, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 37093 of 1999, in which this Court on 31.8.1999 ordered that the D.I.O.S. will take decision with regard to the said report of the Accounts Officer within two months. It is contended that the said order has not been complied with. 4. Sri Rajendra Pratap, D.I.O.S. has filed short counter-affidavit, in which he has alleged that the decision has been taken in compliance of the order of this Court, which is Annexure-C.A.-1 to the counter-affidavit. According to him, the appointment was not in accordance with rules and, therefore, it has been disapproved. 5. 4. Sri Rajendra Pratap, D.I.O.S. has filed short counter-affidavit, in which he has alleged that the decision has been taken in compliance of the order of this Court, which is Annexure-C.A.-1 to the counter-affidavit. According to him, the appointment was not in accordance with rules and, therefore, it has been disapproved. 5. I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri D. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the entire record. 6. The enquiry was instituted by the D.I.O.S. and the Accounts Officer was entrusted with the enquiry. The Accounts Officer submitted report on 3.11.1997, which is Annexure-4 to the petition. According to this report, the appointment of the petitioner is valid and is in accordance with rules and, therefore, he recommended that financial approval to the appointment should be given. 7. No decision was taken on this report and the only direction in the writ petition was to take decision with regard to the report of the Accounts Officer within two months. However, in the writ petition no opinion was expressed regarding the correctness or otherwise of the report nor it was examined on merits. 8. The D.I.O.S. considered the report and the matter of appointment of the petitioner in great detail. He observed in the previous writ petition the petitioner claimed his appointment under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982. However, in the second writ petition, he claimed his appointment under Removal of Difficulties II Order. Both these matters were considered and it was held that the appointment is not according to the rules either under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982, or under Removal of Difficulties Order (Second). Therefore, the appointment was disapproved. 9. It is further contended that previous approval in compliance of the order passed in the writ petition was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who was holding the charge of D.I.O.S. without considering the provisions of the Act. 10. Therefore, the direction of this Court has been complied with. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the D.I.O.S. deciding the matter and is of the view that the decision is not correct, he may challenge the same in the appropriate writ or in other proper proceedings. 11. 10. Therefore, the direction of this Court has been complied with. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the D.I.O.S. deciding the matter and is of the view that the decision is not correct, he may challenge the same in the appropriate writ or in other proper proceedings. 11. There is no ground to proceed with the contempt. The petition for contempt is accordingly dismissed.