JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Avionics) in pursuance of his application made against an advertisement issued by the State of U.P. on 1.12.2021 and he joined on 11.3.2022. The appointment letter was issued by the State Government appointing him on contract basis on fixed remuneration of Rs.2.5 lakhs per month and was entitled to two increments of 5 percent annually. It was further stated that the agreement was for a period of two years and would expire on 24.2.2024. It was further provided that the petitioner would have to enter into a contract with the State Government within twenty days of the offer of the letter he would have to give his consent in writing for accepting the offer of appointment. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after joining on 11.3.2022 he had submitted his consent letter to the respondents but the respondents after a delay of more than two months submitted a draft contract to be entered into between the petitioner and the State Government as provided in clause 4 of the appointment letter. The petitioner had provided stamp papers, but it is admitted by both the parties that till date the petitioner has not signed the contract. In the meanwhile, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 11.5.2022 to the respondents. It is also admitted that till date the said resignation has not been accepted by the opposite parties. It is also stated that the petitioner has not reported for duty subsequent to his resignation on 11.5.2022. 4. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 26th September, 2022 by which the respondents have sought recovery of an amount of Rs.3,66,168/-from the petitioner on account of the fact that due to his not reporting for duty the work of Aircraft Maintenance Engineer has been taken from some other agency. 5. 4. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 26th September, 2022 by which the respondents have sought recovery of an amount of Rs.3,66,168/-from the petitioner on account of the fact that due to his not reporting for duty the work of Aircraft Maintenance Engineer has been taken from some other agency. 5. Petitioner submits that once he has submitted his resignation the contract has been severed and consequently no obligation arises from the said contract and the petitioner could not have been asked to make payment for the work taken subsequent to this resignation from a third party. 6. Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner was appointed purely on contract basis and rights and obligations arising between the parties are contractual. It is stated that the petitioner avoided signing the said contract which was duly handed over to him and it is for this reasons that the resignation has never been accepted and has also disputed the claim of the petitioner that the relations of employer and employee stands severed. He submits that there are serious disputed questions of facts and law involved in the present case and, hence, submits that the matter would be appropriately dealt with by civil court which will have the power to return a finding and take evidence on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is noticed that the pursuant to the offer of appointment the petitioner dated 1.12.2021 the petitioner joined on the post of Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (avionics) on 11.3.2022. As per the terms and conditions and contained in the offer of appointment the petitioner was to enter into a contract with the respondents which admittedly was never signed. The details of the terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner and the respondents were duly enumerated and detailed in the said contract but the same was never signed by the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly did not report for duty subsequent to his resignation on 11.5.2022. The details of the terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner and the respondents were duly enumerated and detailed in the said contract but the same was never signed by the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly did not report for duty subsequent to his resignation on 11.5.2022. Due to the fact that the petitioner did not report for duty the work of aircraft maintenance work was taken from certain third party for which the State Government claims to have spent an amount of Rs.3,66,168/-which has now been sought to be recovered from the petitioner. 9. The law with regard to the interference by High Court in matters where there are disputed question of fact and law is fairly well settled. In the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others, AIR 2000 SC 1603 it has been observed as under:- "3. First question has recently been dealt with by judgment of this Court in Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Ors. v. Sukamani Das and Anr. In that case the deceased met his death due to electrocution. It was alleged that while the deceased was proceeding from his village to another place he decided to return back as dark clouds gathered in the sky arid there were thunderbolts also. While he was returning it started raining and while walking on the road he came in contact with an electric wire which was lying across the road after getting snapped from the overhead electric line. It was thus alleged that the electric wire had snapped because of the negligence of the appellant and its officers in not properly maintaining the electricity transmission line. Thus claim for damages was laid. Appellant Grid Corporation of Orissa submitted that there was no negligence and it was because of the thunderbolt and the lightening that one of the conductors of the 12 W LT line had snapped even though proper guarding was provided and further that as soon as information regarding the snapping of line was received from the line helper of the village concerned the power was disconnected. It was also contended that the deceased did not die as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire but he met his death due to lightening. It was also contended that the deceased did not die as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire but he met his death due to lightening. The appellant Grid Corporation objected to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and said that proper remedy was a civil suit as disputed question of fact arose and evidence had to be lead by both the parties. High Court, however, decided the matter on merit and awarded compensation of rupees one lakh. On appeal this Court said that High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition as it was not a fit case for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was observed that High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the death had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wire of the electric transmission line of the appellants which "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". This Court said that High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimant. This Court further said that it was a settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts were involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not a proper remedy. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in Shakuntala Devi v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (1995) 2 SCC 369 , wherein this Court specifically exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and it was said that the judgment was rendered on the facts of that case and would not be treated as a precedent in any other matter." 10. Further, in the case of Municipal Council Gondia vs Divi Works And Suppliers Huf decided on 28 February, 2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.1538/2022, it has been held as under: "8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has issued a writ of mandamus virtually granting the relief of specific performance of the contract/work order. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has issued a writ of mandamus virtually granting the relief of specific performance of the contract/work order. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court was made to believe that the original writ petitioners had already manufactured the goods which are customized and as per the specifications and the work order. However, it is now found that there are no manufactured goods readily available which can be supplied to the appellant – Council. There are disputed questions of fact such as whether in fact the goods were manufactured as per the specifications or not. Nothing was on record before the High Court that goods were in fact and actually manufactured by the original writ petitioner No.1, as per the specifications and the requirements of the Council and as per the work order. In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order and accept the goods from the original writ petitioner No.1 and to make the payments as per the work order. Even otherwise, no writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The original writ petitioners ought to have been relegated to file a civil suit for appropriate relief of losses/damages, if any, sustained." 11. This Court is of considered view that there are disputed questions of facts involved in this petition, which can be adjudicated only after adducing evidence. A finding would have to be recorded as to whether on mere submission of resignation the relationship of employer and employee stood severed. The State Government has claimed to have spent an amount of Rs.3,66,168/-for the services taken from third party and also the basis for the said payment will also have to be proved as also whether the petitioner can be made liable to pay the said amount. The State Government has claimed to have spent an amount of Rs.3,66,168/-for the services taken from third party and also the basis for the said payment will also have to be proved as also whether the petitioner can be made liable to pay the said amount. It is also noticed that the rights and obligations are purely contractual and both the parties will be able to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and as per the settled law in this regard, such a dispute should not be entertained by High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can be adjudicated by a civil court. 12. In light of the above, the petitioner has appropriate remedy before the civil court and such mattes cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction in a summary manner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid the petition is dismissed.