Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
(2.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against judgement dated 16.11.1992 passed in writ petition no. 9876 of 1988 Sita Ram v. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and another . The learned Single Judge vide his judgement dated 16.11.1992 dismissed the writ petition. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are:
(3.) Jawahar Shiksha Niketan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jangal Baban. Bhaura Bari, Gorakhpur is an institution governed by U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The appellant hereinafter referred as petitioner claims to have been appointed as untrained Teacher in C.T. grade in pursuance of appointment letter dated 25.6.1972. The appointment letter which has been filed by the petitioner discloses that said appointment was up to 20.5.1973. Further case of the petitioner is that he was allowed to continue even after 20.5.1973 and was sanctioned one year leave from 1.7.1974 to 30.6.1975 for under going L.T. Training, petitioner was permitted to join the institution on 1.7.1975. In the year 1975 it is stated that headmaster of the institution made certain appointment in C.T. grade. The petitioner along with certain other teacher challenged those appointment in this Court by means of writ petition no. 11192 of 1975 which was dismissed by this Court on 29.10.1976. Petitioner also filed a civil suit no. 345 of 1978 along with four other persons, application for interim injunction was rejected by the Trial Court, appeal against which order was also dismissed. The suit thereafter was dismissed in default. Petitioner claims to have submitted several representation to the District Inspector of Schools for regularisation of his service and for payment of his salary. The District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 2.3.1988 wrote to the petitioner that suit no. 347 of 1978 filed by the petitioner and the appeal having been dismissed on 3.10.1978, there is no need to give any decision by District Inspector of Schools. After the order dated 2.3.1998, petitioner filed writ petition no. 9876 of 1988 in which affidavits were exchanged between the parties and writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 16.11.1992. Against the order dated 16.11.1992 present special appeal has been filed. Learned Single Judge in his judgement dated 16.11.1992 while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner gave following reasons for dismissal of the writ petition. i) The petitioner's earlier writ petition no. 11192 of 1975 by which the appointment of certain teachers was challenged has already been dismissed by this Court on 19.10.1976, in that writ petition, the relief sought by the petitioner was that they were validly appointed teachers and are entitled in their salary. Suit no. 345 of 1978 was also filed by the petitioner which was dismissed subsequent to rejection of interim injunction application, in view of the earlier litigation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. ii) In the counter filed by the management, the appointment letter filed by the petitioner is stated to be forged and fabricated. It was stated in the counter affidavit that one Sita Ram s/o Jokhu Ram was appointed as untrained temporary teacher who later proceeded on leave and thereafter never returned. The petitioner Sita Ram who is not son of Rambali was never appointed. Management further stated that it never allowed the petitioner to work or recommended his case for regularization. Petitioner except for a bare denial did not bring any material to substantiate the denial. Allegations involved highly disputed question of the fact and cannot be resolved in proceeding under Article 226.;