JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri V.K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.S.M. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and the Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Inspite of service of the summons on respondent No. 2, the said respondent has neither appeared nor filed any counter-affidavit. 2. In the institution known as Sri Sankat Mochan Higher Secondary School, Singhpur, Sarnath, Varanasi, one Lalji Pandey was promoted as L.T. grade teacher. Consequently, on account of his promotion, the post of C.T. grade teacher fell vacant. It is alleged that the post was advertised and thereafter, the committee of management after considering the applications, resolved to appoint the petitioner on an ad hoc basis as a C.T. grade teacher. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was already working as an Assistant Clerk in the same institution. The resolution of the committee of management as well as his appointment letter and other papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, who by an order dated 17-11-1984, granted limited approval to the petitioner for being appointed as an ad hoc C.T. grade teacher, subject to the condition that if the original incumbent, namely, Lalji Pandey joins the said post or the post was filled up by a regular candidate appointed by the Commission, in that eventuality, the appointment of the petitioner would come to an end. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 10-12-1985, passed an order approving the appointment of the petitioner as an ad hoc C.T. grade teacher till 30-6-1986. The approval was not extended thereafter. The petitioner alleged that he continued to work as a C.T. grade teacher and since his salary was not being paid he filed a writ petition No. 15176 of 1987 for a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to treat him as a C.T. grade teacher beyond 30-6-1986 and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him the salary. For facility, the prayer made by the petitioner in the said writ petition is quoted herein under : “(i) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner No. 1 to be continuing as C.T. grade teacher in the institution beyond 30th of June, 1986 and to continue paying him salary with arrears on that account as C.T. grade teacher in the institution till a permanent incumbent on the post joins. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner No. 2 as Clerk of the institution beyond 30th June, 1986 and to continue paying the same till a permanent incumbent on the post joins. (iii) issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, so that justice be done.” 3. In the said writ petition, the petitioner categorically asserted that he was discharging his duties as a C.T. grade teacher. On the basis of the averments made in the writ petition, the Court passed an interim order dated 23-11-1987 directing that the services of the petitioner would not be dispensed with and that the authorities were further directed to pay his salary. The interim order dated 23-11-1987 is quoted herein under : “Issue notice. Meanwhile the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with and further they shall be paid salary as and when it falls due, till a duly selected candidate or any reserve pool teacher becomes available for appointment on the said post or the return of the incumbent to that post or services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law whichever is earlier.” 4. Subsequently, upon the counter-affidavit being filed and upon placing the facts before the Court that the approval granted by the District Inspector of School was only limited till 30-6-1986 and that the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Clerk and further he was being paid his salary for the post of Assistant Teacher and also that he was suspended as an Assistant Clerk vide resolution of the committee of management dated 26-6-1987, the Writ Court, in the aforesaid writ petition, by an order dated 18-3-1988 vacated the interim order already granted in his favour. The said order is quoted herein below : “I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the committee of management and am of the opinion that in view of the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, it is not a case in which any interim order should have been granted in terms of the order dated 23-11-1987. The interim order dated 23-11-1987 is, therefore, vacated. This order shall not however operate as a bar to the District Inspector of Schools continuing with the enquiry which he has already undertaken on the matter and passing appropriate orders pursuant thereto.” 5. Eventually, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by an order dated 4-11-2003. 6. On the basis of the interim order dated 23-11-1987, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 5-12-2007 permitting the petitioner to continue till regular appointment was made by the Commission. The District Inspector of Schools, by the same order also rejected the resolution of the committee of management for appointment of respondent No. 3 Sri R.K. Verma on the post of C.T. grade teacher who, in the meanwhile, was appointed by a resolution of the committee of management dated 10-7-1986. 7. It may also be mentioned here that this stage that after the Court vacated the interim order dated 23-11-1987 by its order dated 18-3-1988 it is alleged by the respondent in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner, in connivance with the officiating District Inspector of Schools, obtained an order dated 28-4-1988, permitting the petitioner to continue to work as a C.T. grade teacher. A perusal of the order dated 28-4-1988 indicates that the officiating District Inspector of Schools did not consider the order of the Court dated 18-3-1988. 8. Against the orders dated 5-12-1987 and 28-4-1988, the respondent No. 3 preferred writ petition No. 5873 of 1988 praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders and for approval of its appointment and for payment of his salary. The relief claimed by the petitioner is quoted herein below : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ or mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay regularly salary of the petitioner including all arrears as C.T. Grade Assistant Teacher. The relief claimed by the petitioner is quoted herein below : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ or mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay regularly salary of the petitioner including all arrears as C.T. Grade Assistant Teacher. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as C.T. Grade Assistant Ad-hoc Teacher and not to interfere with his functioning as C.T. Grade Assistant Ad-hoc Teacher till Sri Lalji Pandey joins his original post or any regular selection is being made by the Board. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 5-12-1987 (Annexure 10) passed by respondent No. 1. (iv) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to which the petitioner is found entitled in law. (v) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 9. By an amendment application the respondent No. 3 prayed for the quashing of the order dated 28-4-1988. 10. From a perusal of the said writ petition it transpires that the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 3 but on the request of Sri Rajendra Kumar Verma, the present respondent No. 3, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the array of the parties, by an order of the Court dated 1-4-1988. In this writ petition, the present respondent No. 3 alleged that the committee of management had appointed him by a resolution dated 10-7-1986, and since, then he was continuously discharging his duties. The said respondent also alleged that the petitioner was not working as a C.T. grade teacher after 30-6-1986 and that, he was working as an Assistant Clerk. Curiously, in paragraph 10 of the said writ petition, the said respondent alleged that Lalji Pandey, the person who was originally working on the post of C.T. grade teacher and who was promoted on the post of L.T. grade teacher was reverted to the post of C.T. grade teacher. 11. In the aforesaid writ petition No. 5873 of 1988, the respondent No. 3 could not obtain any interim order, and subsequently by an order dated 8-10-2001, the said writ petition, was dismissed as infructuous. 11. In the aforesaid writ petition No. 5873 of 1988, the respondent No. 3 could not obtain any interim order, and subsequently by an order dated 8-10-2001, the said writ petition, was dismissed as infructuous. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent No. 3 filed another writ petition No. Nil of 1990. In this writ petition he prayed, that his representation dated 19-2-1990 pending before the Deputy Director of Education be decided. The respondent No. 3, in this writ petition, did not mention the filing of the earlier Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1988 nor impleaded the petitioner as a party in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10-8-1990 directing the authority to decide the representation of the respondent. Based on the said order, the Deputy Director of Education passed an order dated 2-7-1991 holding that the petitioner was not working as a C.T. grade teacher since 1-7-1986 and that he was reverted back to the post of Assistant Teacher and therefore, the respondent No. 3 was entitled for salary w.e.f. 11-7-1986. This order of the Deputy Director of Education was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19065 of 1991 which was quashed by a judgment dated 4-11-2003 and the order dated 2-7-1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Education as well as the order dated 31-3-2000 passed by the Director of Education was quashed. The Court, in its judgment, held that the Deputy Director of Education could not pass an ex parte order against the petitioner without giving him opportunity of hearing. The Court further observed that respondent No. 3 had concealed material facts while obtaining an order dated 10-8-1990 in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1990 without disclosing the pendency of the earlier writ petition filed by him and without making the petitioner a party, who was a necessary party. 12. Against the judgment dated 4-11-2003, the respondent No. 3 filed three separate special appeals before a Division Bench which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 15-12-2003 directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the rival claims of the parties and decide the matter after giving them an opportunity of hearing. 12. Against the judgment dated 4-11-2003, the respondent No. 3 filed three separate special appeals before a Division Bench which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 15-12-2003 directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the rival claims of the parties and decide the matter after giving them an opportunity of hearing. The said order of the Division Bench was passed on the presumption that the entitlement of the person to hold the post in question had not yet been determined by the authorities. Based on the order of the appellate Court, the parties were given a new lease of life. They placed their respective claims again before the District Inspector of Schools who by the impugned order dated 3-8-2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner and further held that respondent No. 3 was entitled to continue as a teacher in C.T. grade. The District Inspector of Schools, in the impugned order, held that the petitioner’s appointment came to an end on 30-6-1986 and the said appointment was not extended after 30-6-1986. The Inspector further gave a finding that the petitioner was reverted to the post of the Assistant Clerk and that he was paid his salary and was also suspended on 26-6-1987 and that he had received the wages of an Assistant Clerk till September 1997. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the post of C.T. grade teacher. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order held that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was valid pursuant to the order dated 2-7-1991 and 31-3-2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a C.T. grade teacher on an ad-hoc basis, for a limited period and that the District Inspector of Schools had also granted an approval till 30-6-1986. Consequently, the learned Counsel submitted that once an appointment was approved by the Inspector, the petitioner should be allowed to continue till such time the original incumbent reverted back to that post or the said post was filled up by a regularly selected candidate appointed by the Commission. Consequently, the learned Counsel submitted that once an appointment was approved by the Inspector, the petitioner should be allowed to continue till such time the original incumbent reverted back to that post or the said post was filled up by a regularly selected candidate appointed by the Commission. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon two decisions of the Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1987(1) UPLBEC 18 and Umesh Chandra v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur & Ors., 1978(1) UPLBEC 105. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to the counter-affidavit of the State filed in Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1988 to show that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 5-12-1987. The learned Counsel further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had committed a manifest error in validating the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the basis of the orders dated 2-7-1991 and 30-3-2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Education which orders were set aside by this Court in its judgment dated 4-11-2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 19065 of 1991. 14. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed on the post of C.T. grade teacher since his term was never extended after 30-6-1986 and, even otherwise, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher and duly received his salary till September 1987. Further the said petitioner was also suspended as an Assistant Clerk by a resolution of the committee of management passed in June 1987. The Court placed a question upon the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 to show how he was working on the post of C.T. grade teacher after 5th December, 1987 when the District Inspector of Schools disapproved his appointment on the post of C.T. grade teacher. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that once the interim order dated 23-11-1987 stood vacated by an order dated 18-3-1988, the effect of the order dated 5-12-1987 lost its efficacy and consequently, the appointment of the petitioner stood impliedly approved. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that once the interim order dated 23-11-1987 stood vacated by an order dated 18-3-1988, the effect of the order dated 5-12-1987 lost its efficacy and consequently, the appointment of the petitioner stood impliedly approved. Consequently, the Deputy Director of Education, on the representation of the petitioner, had approved his appointment by an order dated 2-7-1991 which was again ratified by him by another order dated 31-3-2000. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 was entitled to continue as a C.T. grade teacher. 15. Having given my considerable thought in the matter and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petitioner has unnecessarily raked up an issue for which he was not entitled for any relief since 1-7-1986. Once the appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 30-6-1986 and his appointment was not extended thereafter by the Inspector coupled with the fact that the petitioner rejoined the post of Assistant Clerk and was paid his salary on that post, the said petitioner had no right or authority to claim the post of a C.T. grade teacher. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner has no application to the present facts and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools, in the impugned order was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 16. This petition could be dismissed at this stage, after the Court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for any relief. However, the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the District Inspector of Schools, in the impugned order has validated the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the sole ground that the Deputy Director of Education had validated his appointment by an order dated 2-7-1991 and 31-3-2000. The District Inspector of Schools has lost sight of the fact that both the orders dated 2-7-1991 and 31-3-2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Education were quashed by the High Court by a judgment dated 4-11-2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 19065 of 1991. The judgment of the Court dated 4-11-2003 has not been set aside nor the orders of the Deputy Director of Education had been affirmed by the Division Bench in the three Special Appeals filed by respondent No. 3. The judgment of the Court dated 4-11-2003 has not been set aside nor the orders of the Deputy Director of Education had been affirmed by the Division Bench in the three Special Appeals filed by respondent No. 3. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools could not rely upon the orders dated 2-7-1991 and 31-3-2003 which had been quashed and was not in existence. 17. At this stage, the Court could easily remit the matter back to the authority to redecide the claim of the respondent No. 3 namely as to whether, he was entitled to work on the post of C.T. grade teacher or not. This Court, on the basis of the evidence already on the record, finds that respondent No. 3 has no claim on the post of Assistant grade teacher. The reason is that the District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 5-12-1987, had clearly disapproved the resolution of the committee of management to appoint respondent No. 3 as a C.T. grade teacher. This order has become final. The respondent No. 3 had challenged this order of 5-12-1987 in Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1988 in which he did not get any interim order and eventually the writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 8-1-2001. Consequently, in so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, the order dated 5-12-1987 has became final. His appointment as a C.T. grade teacher was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools. Further, there is no subsequent order of any authority, especially of the District Inspector of Schools approving again his appointment as a C.T. grade teacher. 18. From the record it transpires that the respondent was hankering for the payment of salary by hook or by crook and therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. Nil of 1990, making an innocuous prayer for deciding his representation before the District Inspector of Schools. Even though he got an order from the District Inspector of Schools dated 2-7-1991 the same was challenged in Writ Petition No. 19065 of 1991 which was eventually quashed. The respondent could not get his salary and approached the Backward Commission placing his grievance with regard to the non-payment of the salary. Even though he got an order from the District Inspector of Schools dated 2-7-1991 the same was challenged in Writ Petition No. 19065 of 1991 which was eventually quashed. The respondent could not get his salary and approached the Backward Commission placing his grievance with regard to the non-payment of the salary. It transpires that the Backward Commission directed the Deputy Director of Education to pass orders for the payment of his salary, on the basis of which the Deputy Director of Education passed an order dated 31-3-2000 for the payment of his salary. This order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 31-3-2000 was challenged by the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 19065 of 1995 by means of an amendment application, which was allowed by the Court and eventually, the said Court, by a judgment dated 4-11-2003 quashed the orders of the Deputy Director of Education dated 2-7-1991 and 31-3-2000. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to continue as a C.T. grade teacher after 5-12-1987. Consequently, the portion of the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3-8-2005 validating the appointment of respondent No. 3 also cannot be sustained and, to that extent, the impugned order could not be maintained. 19. During the course of the argument the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that respondent No. 3 had been paid his salary. The question, is how and when he had been paid his salary. The committee of management has not come forward to contest the matter. However, from the counter-affidavit filed by the committee of management, in the earlier petition, the committee of management had supported the stand of respondent No. 3. Consequently, it can safely be presumed that the committee of management was responsible for the payment of salary to respondent No. 3 which had wrongly been paid from the exchequer of the State Government. Consequently, I direct the Director of Education to hold an inquiry and if it finds that the payment of salary had wrongly been made to respondent No. 3 in that eventuality, the amount shall be recovered from the committee of management and/or from respondent No. 3. The inquiry and necessary action shall be taken by the Director of Education within three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The inquiry and necessary action shall be taken by the Director of Education within three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. A report would also be placed before this Court on 15-11-2007. 20. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with a rider that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3-8-2005 in so for as it validated the appointment of respondent No. 3 is quashed. It is further directed that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to continue as a C.T. Grade Teacher after 5-12- 1987. Further, the Director of Education is required to hold an inquiry, as directed aforesaid, and submit its report as well as the action taken on it within three months before this Court. Even though the matter is being dismissed, the matter will be listed again before this Court along with the report of Director of Education on 15-11-2007. Registry will ensure the listing of the case. 21. A certified copy of this judgment shall be made available to Sri R.K. Chaubey the learned Standing Counsel within a week to enable him to transmit the same to the Director of Education. ————