Satyabrata Singh, J.

1. The petitioner in this application, inter alia, has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect and/or further effect to the Annexures "D" and "E" to the petition and/or granting approval to take step for getting the approval of the petitioner forthwith and/or to release of the D.A. to the petitioner forthwith; and (b) a writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce all the relevant records relating to the case and after persual of the same quashing the same.

2. The petitioner admittedly was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher of Shri Daulatram Nopany Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as 'the School') in March 1972. On or about March 13, 1992 the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, directed the head of the Institution to inform him justifying the legality of the constitution of the Managing Committee, failing which, it was threatened, the financial grant would not be released. On or about March 31, 1992 Sri C. D. Singh and three other approved Teachers filed a writ application in this Court questioning the aforementioned order of the District Inspector of Schools, thereupon an interim order was passed directing the concerned respondent to make payment of dearness allowance to teaching and non-teaching staff of the School. On February 23, 1994 the District Inspector of Schools made an enquiry; from the Headmaster of the School as to whether the petitioner had been getting D.A. The petitioner made a representation to the Secretary of the School for getting D.A. released by the State as also for approval of his services by the Board on April 23, 1993 and again on January) 12, 1994.

3. According to the petitioner, he could not attend the School for some time because of his illness.

4. The Rector of the School, however, by his letters dated January 31, 1994 and February 8, 1994 informed him that he had not checked all note books and that all the ticked pages were full of mistakes. He pointed out certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said letter of the Rector by his letter dated February 6, 1994. By reason of the impugned order dated February 29, 1994, the petitioner was informed that he would not be allowed to take classes in Hindi and he was directed to take classes only in Sanskrit, which were fourteen in number, between 11.00 A.M. and 2.00 P.M, from June 1, 1994.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed this writ application on March 29, 1994. In the meantime, the Rector of the School by a letter dated June 30, 1994 asked the petitioner to submit the revised syllabus to the Principal by July 4, 1994.

6. Mr. Sanyal appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a highly qualified Teacher and throughout his career he had been teaching in Hindi and Sanskrit subjects. The learned Counsel submits that out of seventy-five Teachers engaged in the School, only thirty-six Teachers are approved, which, according to the petitioner, is now thirteen as twenty-three of them have already retired and thus at present sixty-two Teachers are not approved Teachers. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that as a large number of posts of approved Teachers arc vacant, the petitioner would be considered therefor and this Court should also set aside the impugned order of punishment.

7. In a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent School has not only reduced the classes of the petitioner but has also reduced his salary to the extent of about half.

8. Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that at the time of his appointment he was given to understand that the School being an aided School of the State and Government D.A. would be payable to him, his services would be approved by the State. According to the learned Council, the respondents and particular