- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 16-8-1980 (Annexure-X) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and also order dated 11-9-1979 referred in the said order of the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (An nexure-X) and also another order dated 20-2-1975 passed by District Inspector of Schools directing to stop, payment of salary. Petitioner also sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing opposite parties to treat the petitioner in the lecturer's grade since 1951 and pay him the salary accordingly.
(2.) PETITIONER pleaded that he was ap pointed as Teacher (Sanskrit) in Public English School, Manauri, Allahabad (hereinafter called Institution ). When In stitution was allowed Inter Classes, petitioner was required to teach Sanskrit in Inter Classes. PETITIONER received salary as lecturer for some time, but sub sequently it was stopped under the im pugned order dated 20-2-1975 on the ground that petitioner did not possess req uisite educational qualification. District Inspector of Schools also withheld the ap proval in favour of the petitioner's ap pointment as Lecturer. As a consequence thereof, another order dated 16-8-1980 (Annexure-10) was issued by District In spector of Schools directing for realization of excess payment, if any received by the petitioner as Lecturer Le. difference of emoluments between the pay scale of As sistant Teacher (L. T Grade) and the pay scale of Lecturer. Surendra Narain Pandey, another Teacher, who claims to have been ap pointed by promotion on the post of Lec turer (Sanskrit) in the institution filed an impalement application and it having been allowed, he has been imp leaded as Respondent No. 3 in the present petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on one hand and Respondent No. 3, on the other hand filed separate counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
(3.) IN the instant case an interim order dated 17-10-1984 was passed in favour of the petitioner subject to certain condi tions like security etc. . By a subsequent order dated 5-11-1984 this Court provided that the earlier interim order dated 17-10-1984 shall be available to the petitioner only if no person was duly appointed on the post in question before passing of the order and in case some other person was already appointed, petitioner was not to get benefit of the interim order. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I find that the present petition can be decided, without adjudicating on the issues on merits, in the manner herein below.;