JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. The petitioners have set up a case that respondent, a minority institution, has issued an advertisement to fill up three substantive vacancies for the post of Assistant Teachers LT grade. The petitioners have applied for the said post and were duly appointed and in pursuance of their respective appointment letters, they joined service on 1st August 1998. Further case is that Committee of Management of concerned institution have submitted the documents to concerned DIOS for approval on 7th August 1998. 2. It is further case of the petitioners that when concerned DIOS has not passed any specific order in terms of the relevant provisions, their approval was deemed to be approved and when their salaries were not paid, they constrained to approach this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 9230/1999 seeking following reliefs :- "(i) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to treat the petitioners' selection dated 19.07.1998 as deemed approved and pay salary to the petitioners with effect from 08.09.1998 (petitioner no. 1 and 3) and with effect from 14.09.1998 (petitioner no. 2) regularly month to month including arrears of salary; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider and approve the selection of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade in Anglo Bangali Girls Inter College, Agra which selections have been submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools, Agra vide letters dated 07.08.1998 and pay salary to the petitioners accordingly; (iii) issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fitr and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) award costs of the writ petition to the petitioners." 3. This Court in above referred writ petition passed an interim order on 12th March 1999 that :- 'Until further order of this Court the respondents directed to make payment of salary of this L.T. Grade teachers then to duly approved, assistant teachers L.T. Grade in Anglo Bengali Girls Inter College, Agra.'. 4. This Court in above referred writ petition passed an interim order on 12th March 1999 that :- 'Until further order of this Court the respondents directed to make payment of salary of this L.T. Grade teachers then to duly approved, assistant teachers L.T. Grade in Anglo Bengali Girls Inter College, Agra.'. 4. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Bhushan, Advocate for petitioners has submitted that during pendency of said case, firstly appointment of petitioners were approved by the DIOS by an order dated 18th May 1999 and thereafter they were declared parmanent by separate orders dated 19th May 2000, and, thereafter they were promoted also. 5. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that in above circumstances, since grievance of the petitioners were considered that approval was granted and they were also confirmed, without any legal impediment, therefore, they filed an application for withdrawal of their case and accordingly by an order dated 30th July 2003, above referred writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. For reference, said order is mentioned below :- "Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Stay Order if any stands vacated." 6. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that thereafter, petitioners served peacefully and got regular salaries and were promoted also in terms of relevant provisions. However in the year 2023 i.e. after 2 decades, one Bhupendra Singh has filed a complaint in regard to appointment of one of the petitioners on which cognizance was taken, however it was rejected vide order dated 21st November 2023 that such complaint was baseless. It was also noted that earlier attempt of same complainant was remained unsuccessful. 7. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that despite complaint of such person was rejected, still again on basis of same complaint, an enquiry was set up at the level of Joint Director of Education by a communication dated 15th April 2023 addressed to DIOS concerned against all petitioners. 7. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that despite complaint of such person was rejected, still again on basis of same complaint, an enquiry was set up at the level of Joint Director of Education by a communication dated 15th April 2023 addressed to DIOS concerned against all petitioners. During proceedings, notice were issued and petitioners submitted their respective replies and ultimately concerned DIOS by an order dated 31st December 2024 passed an order whereby salary of petitioners were stopped on the ground that approval of petitioner’s appointment was subject to outcome of above referred petition which was dismissed as withdrawn and since interim order was vacated by an order dated 30th July 2003, therefore, order of approval itself becomes inoperative and their salary was got stopped. Relevant part thereof is mentioned below :- Until further order of this court the respondent are directed to made payment of salary of the L.T. Grade teaching them to be duly approved assistant teachers L.T Grade in anglo bangali inter college agra counsel for the petitioner states that the petitions be dismissed as withdrawn the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. stay order if any stands vacated. 8. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that not only petitioners' service was put on stake on a vague complaint by one Bhupendra Singh but wrong interpretation was taken of the order passed in earlier writ petition filed by petitioners. He has referred the contents of the order dated 18th May 1999 whereby during pendency of writ petition, petitioners' services were approved that it was unconditional and order of withdrawal of writ petition would have no adverse effect on such order. For reference, said order is quoted below :- 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for respondent-3 have supported the impugned order that on basis of material available, approval of petitioners’ appointment were subject to outcome of writ petition and when said petition was withdrawn without any specific order and interim order was also vacated, therefore, consequential order of approval becomes inoperative. Petitioners were guilty to withholding of such information which came into light on the basis of complaint and, therefore, impugned order was passed which does not require any interference. 10. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. 11. Petitioners were guilty to withholding of such information which came into light on the basis of complaint and, therefore, impugned order was passed which does not require any interference. 10. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. 11. This is another case where on basis of a complaint made by a complainant (in present case one Bhupendra Singh), an enquiry was initiated despite earlier complaint by the same person was rejected and an absolutely erroneous interpretation was taken of the order passed by the Court while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn filed by the petitioners, without looking into its contents. The complainant is not a party before this Court. 12. I have carefully perused the order dated 18th May 1999 which was passed during pendency of the writ petition filed by petitioners. Said order was passed on basis of consideration by Finance Section on basis of documents available and only thereafter, their services were approved. Said order does not indicate that it was subject to outcome of writ petition filed by petitioners. Till date, the order dated 18th May 1999 has not challenged by any of the parties including the complainant. Order dated 18th May 1999 was further acted upon and petitioners were granted promotion also. There is no reference in the impugned order that the petitioners were not qualified or their selection process was de-hors of relevant Rules. 13. Only reason assigned in the impugned order was that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and interim order was vacated, however as referred above, order of approval was based on documents available and the decision was taken on the basis of material and not only on basis of interim order passed by the Court i.e. for grant of salary. 14. In above circumstances, Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order can not survive. It appears that complainant has a good repo with the officers in the Education Department that despite earlier complaint was rejected still an inquiry was initiated after two decades and impugned order was passed. 15. This Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and others , 2025 AHC 6788 has directed that in such cases, the complainant should file an affidavit that if the allegations are found to be untrue, a legal action could be taken against him. 16. 15. This Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and others , 2025 AHC 6788 has directed that in such cases, the complainant should file an affidavit that if the allegations are found to be untrue, a legal action could be taken against him. 16. In above circumstances, not only the impugned order is set aside, but it is directed that Secretary, Secondary Education, will initiate criminal proceeding against complainant who has filed bogus application against the petitioners which not only led an illegal impugned order but the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court also and details of complainant are as follows :- "Bhupendra Singh Village- Suroti, Tehsil - Acchanera District- Agra" 17. The DIOS concerned is put on caution that he is required to pass orders without any pressure and without giving any unnecessary interpretation of the orders passed by the Court without seeking any clarification, if so warrant. 18. The complainant is not before this Court, however, it is directed that respondent - 1 will issue notice to him to seek explanation as to why not a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- be imposed on him as his complaint has not only invited impugned order but has troubled the petitioners who were peacefully discharging their duties for last more than two decades. 19. The impugned order is set aside and its legal consequence will follow and writ petition stands disposed of with above observations and directions. 20. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.