JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia for the following reliefs : “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.8.2006, passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not release the salary in favour of the respondent No. 5 Sri Indra Veer Singh in pursuance of the order impugned. (iii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner his regular monthly salary in pursuance of recommendation made by the District Inspector of Schools and further direct the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of petitioner with respect to the payment of salary to the petitioner.” 2. The background facts setforth in the writ petition are as follows : 3. Sri Achchey Lal Smarak Inter College, Jhera Jhal, District Firozabad (in short ‘College’) was recognised as Highschool College in the year 1986 and the said college was further upgraded as Intermediate College in the year 1993. 4. According to the petitioner he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 20.5.1986 after the approval of the education authority and since then he was performing his duties in the institution in question. Initially the college was not receiving the grant-in-aid, however, by Government order dated 28.7.2005 the college was brought within the purview of grant-in-aid scheme with effect from 1.1.2004. 5. When the proceedings for providing grant-in-aid was initiated, the name of the teachers working in the college was forwarded by the Committee of Management (in short ‘Committee’) and the name of the petitioner was included in the list of approved teachers of the institution. 6. The name of the petitioner alongwith the other teachers was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (in short “DIOS”), Firozabad for the purpose of payment of salary and thereafter it was forwarded by the DIOS to the Director of Education (Secondary) (in short ‘Director’) by letter dated 16.11.2004 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 9. However, in the said letter dated 16.11.2004 it was mentioned that as per to the report of the management, Ravindra Singh, Assistant Teacher has left the college and has been re-placed by Indra Veer Singh, the respondent No. 5 at serial No. 14. However, in the said letter dated 16.11.2004 it was mentioned that as per to the report of the management, Ravindra Singh, Assistant Teacher has left the college and has been re-placed by Indra Veer Singh, the respondent No. 5 at serial No. 14. By letter dated 18.7.2005 the State Government approved the grant-in-aid in favour of the college and was included in the list of grant-in-aid institutions but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of the approved teachers of the college. 7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the Government order dated 18.7.2005, filed a representation before the State Government and ultimately on getting no response, he filed a Writ Petition No. 28099 of 2006 before this Court and this Court by order dated 19.5.2006 finally disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the State Government to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. 8. The petitioner in pursuant to the order passed by this Court, filed a representation before the State Government and the State Government by a detailed order dated 21.7.2006 dismissed the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner Ravindra Kumar was never appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college but in fact, one another person namely Ravindra Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher but he did not join the college despite his approval. It was further mentioned in the order dated 21.7.2006 that the petitioner was given opportunity of personal hearing, however, he failed to prove his case, that he was ever appointed or worked in the college. Thereafter by letter dated 4.8.2006, the list of the teachers which was forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools was approved and Indra Veer Singh, was included in the list of approved teachers alongwith the other teachers but the name of the petitioner was not included. Hence the present writ petition. 9. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by Indra Veer Singh and Committee of Management, it has been stated that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally frivolous and has been fraudulently filed under the changed name, namely “Ravindra Kumar alias Ravindra Singh” with a view to mislead this Court. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by Indra Veer Singh and Committee of Management, it has been stated that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally frivolous and has been fraudulently filed under the changed name, namely “Ravindra Kumar alias Ravindra Singh” with a view to mislead this Court. However, earlier, the Writ Petition No. 28099 of 2006 was filed in the name of Ravindra Kumar before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 19.5.2006 directing the State Government to dispose of his representation. The State Government in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 18.5.2006 has rejected the representation by an order dated 21.7.2006 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner namely Ravindra Kumar S/o Charan Singh was never appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college. For ready reference the paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit filed by Committee of Management and Indra Veer Singh is reproduced below : “2. That the deponent has been read over and explained the contents of the writ petition along with the Stay Application, Annexures and the Affidavit in support thereof filed by the petitioner Ravindra Kumar alias Ravindra Singh alleging himself to be an Assistant Teacher in Sri Achchey Lal Smarak Inter College, Jeda Jhal, Firozabad (referred to as “the Institution” hereinafter for short) and has fully understood the contents thereof. At the very outset, the answering respondents Most Respectfully submitted that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally frivolous and the same has been filed under the changed name inasmuch the petitioner and two other persons namely, Raj Singh and Sarvesh Kumar had earlier filed a writ petition, i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28099 of 2006, Ravindra Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others before this Honourable Court which was disposed of ex-parte vide order dated 19.5.2006. Petitioner had described himself as Ravindra Kumar in the said writ petition. The Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Shiksha (8), Anubhag, Lucknow had disposed of the representations filed by the petitioner and two other persons namely, Raj Singh and Sarvesh Kumar after affording opportunity of hearing to them vide Order Number 2107/05-8-3003(23)/06 dated 21.7.2006 passed pursuant to the said order dated 19.5.2006 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Number 28099 of 2006, Ravindra Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others. Writ Petition Number 28099 of 2006, Ravindra Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others. A categorical finding has been recorded in the said Order Number 2107/05-8-3003(23)/06 dated 21.7.2006 passed by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Shiksha (8), Anubhag, Lucknow that no person named Ravindra Kumar was ever appointed in the Institution. Petitioner had filed the earlier writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition Number 28099 of 2006, in the name of Ravindra Kumar; he has filed the present writ petition in the name of Ravindra Kumar alias Ravindra Singh; and he is chaining appointment in Institution in the name of Ravindra Singh. The truth is that there is no teacher named Ravindra Kumar alias Ravindra Singh in the Institution. At no point of time was any person named Ravindra Kumar S/o Sri Charan Singh or Ravindra Kumar alias Ravindra Singh S/o Sri Charan Singh was ever appointed in the Institution. All this would go to show in abundance that the claim of the petitioner is totally frivolous and the petitioner has abused the process of law by filing a totally fake and frivolous writ petition before this Hon’ble Court disingenuously. The answering respondents bring of record the said Order dated 19.5.2006 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Number 28099 of 2006, Ravindra Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others and the Order Number 2107/05-8-3003(23)/06 dated 21.7.2006 passed by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Shiksha (8), Anubhag, Lucknow pursuant to the said order dated 19.5.2006 passed by this Hon’ble Court are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 and 2 respectively.” It has further been stated in the counter affidavit filed by Indra Veer Singh that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher by letter dated 30.6.1991 and he joined the college on 1.7.1991 and his appointment was also approved later on by the District Inspector of Schools on 5.3.1995 which has been appended as Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit. This apart, few more documents were filed to show that Indra Veer Singh was duly appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college. This apart, few more documents were filed to show that Indra Veer Singh was duly appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of State Government, Director and DIOS appending the Highschool certificate of Ravindra Singh, wherein the name of the father of Ravindra Singh has been shown as Jagdish Singh and the letter dated 7.8.1987 has also been appended which was written by the DIOS to the Principal of the college wherein the educational qualification of Ravindra Singh was mentioned namely B.A. L.T., Marksheets of Highschool, Intermediate, B.A. and L.T. examination, 1983 also have been appended to demonstrate that Ravindra Singh and petitioner Ravindra Kumar are two different and distinct persons and in fact Ravindra Singh was appointed in the year 1986 and not the petitioner but still the petitioner whose name happens to be Ravindra Kumar is trying to take undue advantage of the similarity between the two names and making his frivolous claim. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has merely argued that he was appointed in the year 1986 as Assistant Teacher in the college and continued to work there but his name was surprisingly deleted from the list containing the names of the approved teachers by the Committee of Management/District Inspector of Schools, which was approved by the State Government as such the petitioner was denied of his legitimate claim. It has further been submitted that Indra Veer Singh, the respondent No. 5 was never appointed in the said college but malafidely he has been shown to have been appointed in the year 1991 and further contended that in case, he was appointed in 1991 then why his approval was granted by the DIOS after the lapse of 4 years of his appointment and not immediately after the appointment. He has also placed reliance upon the affidavit dated 1.10.2004 forwarded by one Udai Veer Singh, Manager of the college wherein he has mentioned that when Ravindra Singh had left the college, he was replaced by Kamlesh Chandra but subsequently when it was discovered that he was not possessing the qualification, Indra Veer Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher in his place and was again permitted to join the college on 10.7.2004. Much emphasis has been placed by the petitioner upon the observations made by the State Government in its order dated 21.7.2006, wherein it has been mentioned that Ravindra Singh was appointed as a teacher but despite the approval, he did not join the college. Therefore, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the learned counsel for the petitioner has impressed upon the Court that contradictory and inconsistent pleas had been taken by the respondents. On one hand it has been stated in the order dated 21.7.2006 that Ravindra Singh after his approval did not join the college, but on the other hand it has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that Ravindra Singh had left the college while he was in service. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the above facts has very fervently and forcibly asserted that Ravindra Singh and the petitioner Ravindra Kumar are one and the same person but still the respondents are unnecessarily trying to create confusion in order to deprive the petitioner of his rightful claim. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner is totally a stranger and at no point of time was he ever appointed in the college. In fact, Ravindra Singh son of Jagdish Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college but he abandoned the job, as such, Indra Veer Singh was appointed in 1991 in his place. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the State Government in its order dated 21.7.2006 has inadvertently mentioned that Ravindra Singh failed to join the college despite his approval. In fact, Ravindra Singh had worked for several years before quitting the job. 13. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Rajeev Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Sri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 and perused the record. 14. Principal question for consideration is as to whether the petitioner namely Ravindra Kumar and Ravindra Singh are one and same person. Bare perusal of the material available on the record goes to show that nowhere on the record, the name of Ravindra Kumar ever cropped up. 14. Principal question for consideration is as to whether the petitioner namely Ravindra Kumar and Ravindra Singh are one and same person. Bare perusal of the material available on the record goes to show that nowhere on the record, the name of Ravindra Kumar ever cropped up. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not even cared to file any mark-sheet or certificate so as to prove his qualification and his actual name. Earlier Writ Petition No. 28099 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner in the name of Ravindra Kumar, however the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the name of Ravindra Kumar alias Ravindra Singh in order to show that the Ravindra Kumar and Ravindra Singh are one and the same person. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, several documents including Highschool mark-sheet and certificates of Ravindra Singh has been appended which clearly goes to show that the name of the father of Ravindra Singh was Jagdish Singh, whereas the name of the father of the petitioner was Charan Singh. The genuineness and the correctness of the documents e.g. Highschools, Intermediate and B.A. Mark-sheets carrying the name of Ravindra Singh son of Jagdish Singh has not been disputed by the petitioner. 16. The petitioner in support of his case has filed the experience certificate allegedly issued by the Principal alongwith two sheets of attendance register. Learned counsel for the respondents has very vehemently disputed the genuineness of the said experience certificate and attendance sheets, which has been appended by the petitioner in its rejoinder affidavit. Argument has been spun out of thin air, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. No reliance can be placed upon the documents namely experience certificate etc. Even otherwise, it does not in any way indicate that the petitioner namely Ravindra Kumar was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1986 and continued in the college until it came under grant-in-aid scheme, therefore, there is nothing on the record to establish that Ravindra Kumar and Ravindra Singh are one and same person. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further disputed the genuineness and validity of the appointment letter issued in favour of Indra Veer Singh. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further disputed the genuineness and validity of the appointment letter issued in favour of Indra Veer Singh. It is well settled proposition that the person who comes to Court must stand or fall on his own legs, he cannot derive any advantage because of the lapses on the part of the defendant. Merely challenging the appointment of Indra Veer Singh will not in any way help his case. It is for the petitioner namely Ravindra Kumar to establish that in fact, he was appointed in the year 1986 and continued, until the college was brought under the grant-in-aid scheme, but absolutely no worth mentioning evidence has been filed by the petitioner to support his claim. 18. The State Government has already afforded enough opportunity and personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, however the petitioner has not been able to prove his case. The State Government by order dated 21.7.2006 has rejected the claim of the petitioner after assigning good and sound reasons which cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. As far as the genuineness and validity of the appointment of Indra Veer Singh, is concerned, it is for the educational authorities to examine whether Indra Veer Singh was a duly appointed teacher or was simply clandestinely set up during the period, when the application of the college for the sanction of the grant-in-aid was under consideration. 20. No other points have been pressed before me. 21. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in this writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ————