Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surbhan Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.1.1990 passed by respondent no.1. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to pay months to months salary to the petitioner regularly along with his arrears of salary treating him in service and not to pay salary to respondent no.2. iii) to issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble court may think just and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. v) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 3 to 5 to refund the amount illegally paid to Vinod Ram respondent no.2. vi) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to appoint the petitioner no.1/3 as peon in place of his father Ram Prasad Decree holder.
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that there is an institution known as Mahrajganj Inter College, Mahrajganj, in which the respondent no.2 Vinod Ram was validly appointed as Class IV employee on 1.12.1973. In his service book the Principal of the Institution has also made entries with respect to his work and behaviour during the year 1975-76. On 4.8.1977, he was dismissed from service by the Principal of the institution on the ground of indiscipline. Against the order of dismissal, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Committee of Management which was allowed by resolution No.2 dated 12.2.1979 and the services of the respondent no.2 were restored. He was reinstated in service by letter dated 19.2.1979. The Principal of the institution filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Committee of Management which was dismissed by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 20.6.1979. Against the aforesaid order the Principal filed a writ petition which was dismissed by order dated 4.7.1979. Despite these facts the Principal of the institution was not allowing the respondent no.2 to take charge. Therefore, the District Inspector of Schools issued letter No.920 dated 30.6.1979, letter No.4937, dated 13.7.1982 and letter No.17007/84-85, dated 7.1.1984 to the Principal of the institution directing him to allow the respondent no.2 to work and give him charge. Instead of complying with the orders, the Principal of the institution allegedly issued an order dated 4.2.1981 again dismissing the respondent no.2 from service. He also allegedly appointed the petitioner Ram Prasad in his place. Thereafter, the petitioner, Ram Prasad filed a suit No.193 of 1984 in the Court of Munsif for a direction to the Principal to give him charge. In the suit the Principal of the institution had admitted all the claims of the petitioner. In this suit neither the respondent no.2 - Vinod Ram nor the Committee of Management were party. The facts of service of the respondent no.2 and the orders passed in his matter as as aforementioned were also suppressed. It appears that an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Munsif Court was filed before the District Judge who passed the order dated 18.9.1986 clarifying that the decree passed by the Munsif Court in suit No. 193 of 1984 is not binding upon Sri Vinod Ram (respondent no.2 herein).;