JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. This is the second attempt by the sole F.I.R. named accused of Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 82 of 2005, registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. after the earlier attempt being Cr.W.J.C. No. 357 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ application, if so advised, by order dated 14.5.2007. 2. The instant writ application has been filed on 19.7.2007, i.e. after about two months time following the earlier writ application being dismissed as withdrawn and no reasons have been assigned as to what necessitated filing of the instant writ application, save and except a bald statement that the petitioner had been advised to file a fresh criminal writ for quashing of the said P.S. Case. 3. The aforesaid police case was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by one P.S. Kansal, the erstwhile Dy. Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Patna, inter alia alleging that the petitioner, the then Dy. Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Patna, had made illegal appointment of one Ashraf Ali against the post of T.G.T. (Sc.), though his name did not appear either in the select panel or in reserved panel. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the application is that it was not the petitioner who had made the appointment of Ashraf Ali as Assistant Teacher and he had been falsely implicated as he happened to be a strict disciplinarian and the informant having worked under the petitioner he had the occasion to assess the C.R. of the informant and had found him an officer not up to the mark, and as such, people like the informant who were adversely affected by the discipline maintained by the petitioner started pulling his legs and with a view to harass him manufactured an incorrect report and sent the same to the Officer Incharge, Shri Krishnapuri Police Station, on the basis whereof the instant police case has been registered. It was further submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly denied having issued the appointment letter and had categorically stated that the alleged forged appointment letter of Ashraf Ali had been issued by the office in connivance with the said Ashraf Ali and other officials of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and for the same a Complaint Case No. 1751C of 2005 had been lodged by one Pramod Kumar Singh, in which all conspirators of the forged appointment letter of Asharaf Ali had been made accused including the informant and the present petitioner had been cited as a witness of the said complaint case. It is also stated that the petitioner had been examined as a witness at the enquiry in the said Complaint Case, wherein cognizance had been taken against the accused persons. 5. Admittedly, Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereunder this application has been filed empowers the High Court to issue writs, directions or orders in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, co-warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-Ill thereof as also for any other purpose. Under the first part, a writ may be issued under this Article only after a decision that the aggrieved party has a fundamental right and that it has been infringed and under the second part a writ can be issued only after a finding that the aggrieved party has a legal right which entitles him to any of the aforesaid writs and that such right has been infringed. In this connection, gainful reference may be made to the decision of State of Orissa v. Madangopal Rungta : AIR 1952 SC 12 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das reported in : (1999) 4 SCC 450 . 6. The instant case does not show the infringement of any fundamental right or legal right of the petitioner, so as to entitle him to any of the writs. 7. Admittedly, a case has been registered by the police on the basis of a written report submitted and the police is required to investigate into the allegations made so as to test the bona fides or otherwise of the allegations. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. 7. Admittedly, a case has been registered by the police on the basis of a written report submitted and the police is required to investigate into the allegations made so as to test the bona fides or otherwise of the allegations. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Whereas there is specific allegation in the written report forming the basis of the F.I.R. that it was the petitioner who had made illegal appointment of Ashraf Ali, there is mere denial of the accusations by the petitioner. Neither any fundamental right nor any question of law is involved from the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the bonafide or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioner can come to light only after the due investigation by the police. 9. One of the grounds against the exercise of the discretion would be that the right, if any, claimed by the petitioner is not capable of being established in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because it requires a detailed examination of the evidence as may be had in a suit or trial. Gainful reference in this context may be placed on the decision of Sohan Lal v. Union of India : AIR 1957 SC 529 . Obviously, the object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the enforcement and not the establishment of a right and it would be highly improper on my part to come to a conclusive decision on the assertions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. For the reasons stated above. I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.