(1.) Petitioner has filed present writ petition, requesting therein that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to make approval of the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the school concerned and to pay salary to him regularly with arrears and further commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, and further for quashing of order dated 11. 02. 2008 passed by Divisional Deputy Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad Region, Allahabad. Earlier, petitioner had filed writ petition before this Court and this Court in writ petition No. 5114 of 2007 on 11. 01. 2007 passed following order: "heard learned counsel for the parties. remuneration Petitioner alleges to have have been appointed as Assistant teacher in a Junior High School in the year 1978. It is further stated that at the time petitioner was appointed, the institution was recognized as a Junior High School by the Basic Shiksha Parisad, U. P. at Allahabad. It is claimed that he has been continuously working in the institution, as has been promoted as headmaster. A news item has been published whereby the State Government has taken a decision to bring large number of recognized Junior High Schools within the grant-in-aid list. Because of such publication, the Management of the Institution with and ulterior motive to engage its manager's return, inasmuch as teachers whose names find mentioned in the managers' return would become entitle for payment of salary under-in-aid list by the State Government. At this stage of the proceedings, the petitioner has approached this court for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to alter/modify the managers' return as well as not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Head Master. Large number of writ petitions for practically the same relief and with same allegations are being filed before this Court every day. It is desirable that the State Government/director of education (Basic) U. P. , Lucknow may,therefore, issue necessary directions for ensuring: (a) That teachers, who have been validly appointed in recognised Junior High schools are not adversely affected because of deliberate arbitrary actions of the Management of the Institution, which are to be taken in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government; (b) The right of the teachers,who are validly appointed since prior to the date the institution is taken on the grant-in-aid. " Pursuant thereto decision has been taken by the Director of Education and it has been found, that petitioner had tendered resignation, and after the said resignation was tendered, permission was sought for from the District Basic Education Officer and interview was held and then approval was accorded and against the said post one Raj Kumar Bind has been offered appointment and he has been functioning; and in this background, claim of petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, contended with vehemence that in the present case claim of his client has been non-suited on totally unjustifiable ground, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submission Sri Chandra Narain Tripathi, Advocate, contended that claim of petitioner is totally unsustainable, as such same cannot be accepted. Factual position in the present case is that petitioner had been functioning as Assistant teacher in the institution concerned; he tendered his resignation, which was duly accepted, and thereafter for filling up the said vacancy District Basic Education Officer on 28. 01. 2002 accorded permission. On 12. 04. 2002 vacancy was advertised and interview was held on 20. 12. 2004 and approval was accorded to the said appointment on 28. 11. 2006; and in the said selection Raj Kumar Bind was appointed as Assistant Teacher. Qua this aspect of the matter, for the first time complaint has been made on 03. 01. 2008 disputing the resignation; that too when the State Government has decided to include the institution in question on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. Once petitioner had tendered resignation, and the vacancy has been filled up, then subsequently, challenge by the petitioner qua the validity of resignation cannot be accepted, and specially in the background, when new incumbent who has been selected, has not at been impleaded and arrayed as party, as such order passed by Assistant Regional Director of Education (Basic) cannot be faulted. On one hand resignation has been disputed and on the other hand, the petitioner has tried to contend that meeting of the Managing Committee was convened wherein decision was taken to adjust the petitioner against the vacancy which was vacant. Under the provisions of U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, there is no provision of adjustment against any vacancy which is to come into existence in future. Resolution dated 25. 02. 2008 is of no consequence. Consequently, in the facts of the present case once petitioner had tendered resignation, which was accepted, then qua the said vacancy no salary can be ensured to the petitioner. As far as future vacancy is concerned, there is no provision of adjustment. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Maya Thapa (Smt.) vs. Basic Education Officer, Dehradun and others, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1268. Said judgment will not come to rescue of the petitioner, for the reason that under the orders of the Court, authority concerned was asked to examine the claim of petitioner in that case as to whether she was entitled for payment, and thereafter, rightful decision had been taken. Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed. .