JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This writ petition has been filed with the allegation that the petitioner had been appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-institution on 1.1.1984, by the Committee of Management and that he joined, pursuant to it, and is continuously working ever since then. However, payment of salary was not released to the petitioner by the State after the institution was taken on aid w.e.f. 1.7.1984. A writ petition No. 18945 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner for the purpose which was disposed of by this Court on 27.9.1988, requiring the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to examine the grievance of the petitioner as raised in his representation, within a period of 2 months. It is alleged that a representation was filed but no decision was taken and as such, subsequent representations, from time to time came to be filed, which met the same fate. It is stated that a certificate was issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, clarifying that the petitioner has been working w.e.f. 1.1.1984 against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition No. 22548 of 1989, in which petitioner again annexed the certificate issue by the Manager/Head Master of the institution, certifying his working. An interim mandamus came to be issued by this Court in the second writ petition directing respondent to either show-cause within a period of 3 weeks from the date the copy of the order is produced or decide the representation of the petitioner or pay salary. This order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 2.12.1989. It is claimed that pursuant to the directions so issued by the Division bench, an order came to be passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, on 16.2.1990, accepting the claim of the petitioner and issuing a direction to the Manager of the institution to ensure release of salary forthwith. The salary, despite such an order, was not paid to the petitioner. Subsequent representations were, thereafter, filed but as the salary was not paid, present writ petition was filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay his current salary and the arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.7.1984. The salary, despite such an order, was not paid to the petitioner. Subsequent representations were, thereafter, filed but as the salary was not paid, present writ petition was filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay his current salary and the arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.7.1984. Counter-affidavit has been filed in the writ petition by the respondents stating that the petitioner had never been appointed in the institution and the entire documents brought on record of the writ petition to suggest that the petitioner had been working, are manipulated, and have not been issued by the competent authority. With regard to the order dated16.2.1990, which is stated to have been passed under the directions of this Court, a categorical stand has been taken by the respondents that this order is absolutely fake and it does not bear any dispatch number nor the office records contain any such letter. It has also been stated that the previous writ petition filed, claiming identical relief, was already pending on the date of filing of the present writ petition and as such, present writ petition is barred by Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court. 2. Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating his stand taken in the writ petition. So far as the allegations with regard to the genuineness of the order dated 16.2.1990 is concerned, it has been stated that the said order was issued by the office concerned and was addressed to the manger of the institution. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi and Sri Vineet Kumar Singh for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been validly working since 1984 and is entitled for payment of salary. It has also been pointed out that for the period between 1992 to 1996, salary had, infact, been released in favour of petitioner which supports the petitioner’s plea that his appointment was valid. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the Management dispute the very appointment of the petitioner in the institution and it is stated that no proceedings were ever drawn resulting in issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the Management dispute the very appointment of the petitioner in the institution and it is stated that no proceedings were ever drawn resulting in issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner. It has been stated that the claim of the petitioner is based entirely upon the writ petitions filed before this Court as well as interim orders issued therein from time to time. It has also been stated that the order dated 16.2.1990 is fabricated and has not been issued by the competent authority as per the record available, and as such the petitioner has rendered himself unworthy of grant of any relief in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It has also been stated that since the previous writ petition for the same relief is pending, as such the subsequent writ petition is not maintainable. It has also been stated by the respondents that under the directions issued by the writ Court dated 27.9.1988, passed in Writ Petition No. 18945 of 1988, the claim of the petitioner was examined by the concerned educational authority and the same was rejected vide his order dated 13.12.1989, which remains intact, and no challenge to it has been made, and in such circumstances, no mandamus is liable to be issued by the writ Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the order dated 13.12.1989 had not been served upon the petitioner and as such, no occasion had arisen for him to challenge the same. 8. Having considered the submissions and upon examining the records made available, it is observed that though an appointment is claimed by the petitioner to have been issued by the committee of management of the institution on 1.1.1984 but issuance of such order of appointment has been denied not only by the management but also by all educational authorities. Admittedly, pursuant to such order, no financial approval was, however, granted. The claim of the petitioner came to be examined by the educational authorities, pursuant to a direction issued by the writ Court and by reasoned order dated 13.12.1989, annexed as Annexure-C.A.1 to the counter-affidavit, petitioner’s claim has been rejected. Cogent reasons have been recorded in the order by the educational authorities to non-suit the petitioner’s claim. The claim of the petitioner came to be examined by the educational authorities, pursuant to a direction issued by the writ Court and by reasoned order dated 13.12.1989, annexed as Annexure-C.A.1 to the counter-affidavit, petitioner’s claim has been rejected. Cogent reasons have been recorded in the order by the educational authorities to non-suit the petitioner’s claim. Although it is alleged by the petitioner that he was not served with the copy of the order dated 13.12.1989 but no attempt has been made by the petitioner to challenge the same, even after it has been brought on record of the writ petition, alongwith counter-affidavit. 9. Petitioner has essentially relied upon the alleged order passed in his favour by the District Basic Education Officer, on 16.2.1990, which according to the respondent, is absolutely forged. A perusal of the order goes to show that no dispatch number is mentioned on this order which is stated to have been issued under a memo. The wording of the order also creates doubt with regard to its genuineness inasmuch as no discussion with regard to the validly of appointment of petitioner is made therein and what is stated in it, is that petitioner has been working and on account of management dispute, he has not been paid salary. This letter is stated to have been issued to the Manager. The Committee of Management of the institution to which this letter was addressed has disputed the existence of any such letter. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the order dated 16.2.1990 is not worthy of placing any reliance inasmcuh as the circumstances and the facts brought on record including the fact that there is no dispatch number in the order clearly creates a serious doubt upon its sanctity. 11. So far as the payment of salary to the petitioner is concerned, the same has been released only in pursuance to the interim order of this Court. No order, granting financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been brought on record. It is also observed that the question of creation of post and appointment of teachers in the institution had been examined by this Court in another Writ Petition No. 25438 of 1996, decided on 26.11.1998. Details of all teachers and staff working in the institution had been mentioned, which does not include the name of petitioner. It is also observed that the question of creation of post and appointment of teachers in the institution had been examined by this Court in another Writ Petition No. 25438 of 1996, decided on 26.11.1998. Details of all teachers and staff working in the institution had been mentioned, which does not include the name of petitioner. Although petitioner is not a party in the said writ petition but in the factual backdrop of the present case, as has been noticed above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that any valid appointment was issued in his favour. Even the order dated 13.12.1989 rejecting petitioner’s representation has not been challenged. 12. Writ Petition itself was not maintainable as a previous writ petition for the same purpose was already pending but in view of the fact that subsequently the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as having become infructuous, the present writ petition has been entertained and examined on merits. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, no good ground has been made out to issue the direction as has been claimed. Writ Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ——————