S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition on 05. 01. 1982 an interim order was passed staying the operation of the impugned order dated 15. 12. 1981. Thereafter writ petition was dismissed by a detailed order dated 19. 08. 1998. However, it appears that petitioners counsel was not present when the said order was passed. Thereafter review/recall application was filed which was allowed on 16. 09. 2006 and order dated 19. 08. 1998 was recalled. Thereafter, writ petition was again dismissed in default on 10. 08. 2007. Said order was set aside on 03. 10. 2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that either the petitioner will attain the age of superannuation (62 years) shortly or he has already attained the age of superannuation, however, getting the benefit of the session he would retire on 30. 06. 2009. 4. According to the petitioner he was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) in Sardar Patel Inter College Sondhi, Luxmipur, Gorakhpur by order of D. I. O. S. dated 21. 07. 1972 for the period ending with 30. 06. 1973 on temporary basis on the additional post of Hindi lecturer. Further case of the petitioner is that a new post had been created/sanctioned hence instead of temporary appointment he should have been given permanent appointment and placed on probation. 5. It may be mentioned that under U. P. High School Intermediate Colleges (payment of salaries of teachers and other employees) Act 1971 (U. P. Act no. 24 of 1971) the power to sanction a new post was initially with D. I. O. S. as per definition of teacher given under Section 2 (e) of the said Act. However, by Section 19 of U. P. Act no. 26 of 1975 Section 9 of the U. P. Act no. 24 of 1971 was substituted and it was provided that no institution shall create a new post of teacher or other employee except with the previous approval of the director or such other officer as may be empowered in that behalf by the Director. 6. Accordingly, until 1975 D. I. O. S. was authorised to create a new post. 7. Number of teachers is to be fixed in accordance with the strength of the students. It is quite possible that for a particular session number of students may be more requiring sanction of temporary post of teacher. 6. Accordingly, until 1975 D. I. O. S. was authorised to create a new post. 7. Number of teachers is to be fixed in accordance with the strength of the students. It is quite possible that for a particular session number of students may be more requiring sanction of temporary post of teacher. However, this question need not finally be decided in this writ petition as until 30. 06. 1973 petitioner did not raise any objection regarding his temporary appointment. If a person claims that he should have been granted appointment of a better nature/status than the one granted to him then he is required to raise the dispute during continuance of the appointment. After cessation of appointment he can not be permitted to assert the said plea. 8. In any case according to the own admission of the petitioner since July 1973 till February 1980 he was not paid any salary. 9. In the year 1980 D. I. O. S. was appointed as receiver of the School in question. He wrote a letter to Deputy Director of Education strongly recommending the case of the petitioner. Deputy Director of Education directed the D. I. O. S. to decide the matter laying down certain guidelines. D. I. O. S. through order dated 13. 03. 1980 copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition regularised the services of the petitioner under removal of difficulties order. However, it was directed that petitioner would not be entitled to the salary prior to 05. 03. 1980. It is interesting to note the said letter is addressed to Manager/principal. In this manner D. I. O. S. sent the said letter to himself. 10. Thereafter, dispute arose and through impugned order dated 15. 12. 1981 Additional Director of Education, Secondary Directorate of Education U. P. Allahabad set aside the said order of D. I. O. S. In the order of D. I. O. S. it was mentioned that in the year 1973-74 proceedings for extension of services of 14 temporary teachers were initiated, however, in the order passed by D. I. O. S. (in 1973-74) granting extension of service name of the petitioner was not there. Strangely enough D. I. O. S. in his order dated 13. 03. 1980 mentioned that management in 1973-74 had sent the name of the petitioner also, however, his services were not extended. Strangely enough D. I. O. S. in his order dated 13. 03. 1980 mentioned that management in 1973-74 had sent the name of the petitioner also, however, his services were not extended. It was also mentioned by D. I. O. S. in his order dated 13. 03. 1980 that petitioner was constantly making representations. Absolutely no date of any representation is mentioned either in the order of D. I. O. S. or even in the writ petition. Extremely vague assertion has been made in para 8 of the writ petition that petitioner was making representation after representation and lastly on 01. 09. 1976 petitioner was allowed to join the college and worked till 23. 07. 1977. There is absolutely no allegation that any salary was paid to the petitioner even for that period. 11. The order by D. I. O. S. extending the services of 18 teachers (which did not include the name of the petitioner) till 30. 06. 1974 was passed on 16. 08. 1973. In case petitioner was entitled for extension, he should have made the representation and approached the Court within reasonable time which was not done. Filing repeated representations, even if this allegation of the petitioner is taken to be correct, is of no avail. It can not keep the claim/cause of action alive vide C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining, 2008 AIR SCW 7233 and AIR 2006 SC 1581 "karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan" 12. It is also mentioned in the impugned order under point 2 that Director of Education through order dated 26. 02. 1976 expressly denied the demand of sanctioning an additional post. In the order by D. I. O. S. dated 13. 03. 1980 it is mentioned that since (on) 24. 07. 1977 petitioner was removed from service. For more than two and half years, petitioner again remained silent (even if this version of working of petitioner from 01. 09. 1976 to 23. 07. 1977 is taken to be correct ). Even if the findings of the D. I. O. S. that proposal for extension of services of the petitioner was also sent for the session 1973-74 by the management is taken to be correct still it will not have any affect. 09. 1976 to 23. 07. 1977 is taken to be correct ). Even if the findings of the D. I. O. S. that proposal for extension of services of the petitioner was also sent for the session 1973-74 by the management is taken to be correct still it will not have any affect. In spite of the proposal sent by the management service of petitioner were not extended and petitioner did not challenge the said non extension within a reasonable time. The D. I. O. S. in his order referred to 5th Removal of Difficulties (R. D.) order, 1976. In the said R. D. order it is provided that if any person was appointed as teacher with the approval or permission of the Inspector and had worked till 15. 11. 1976 then he shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. There is no allegation that appointment of the petitioner dated 01. 09. 1976, even if made, was with the approval of permission of the inspector. 13. Moreover, version that petitioner was appointed from 01. 09. 1976 by the Committee of Management and worked till 24. 04. 1977 cannot be believed as admittedly no salary was paid to the petitioner for the said period and he never made any demand for the same. 14. In any case there being no sanction of post after 30. 06. 1973 petitioner could not be appointed. After 1975 it was only Director who could sanction the post. 15. Order passed by the D. I. O. S. dated 13. 03. 1980 was utterly illegal and made to unduly favour the petitioner. It was rightly set aside by the impugned order by Additional Director. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed lot of reliance on the fact that Additional Director had directed to produce the record on 04. 11. 1981 regarding creation of post in 1972-73 (to ascertain as to whether creation was permanent or temporary) but the records were not produced. The said fact will not make any difference as the appointment of the petitioner was temporary and neither he objected against his temporary appointment in the sense that he represented for converting the appointment into permanent one nor after cessation of employment on 30. 06. 1973 he made any prompt demand or filed any case. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. 06. 1973 he made any prompt demand or filed any case. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. However, whatever salary has been paid to the petitioner under interim order passed by this Court shall not be refundable. .