WP(C) 4232/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. A.D. Choudhury , learned counsel, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Heard also Dr. B. Ahmed, learn ed counsel, for the petitioner. Considering the fact that petitioner herein has put to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.5 as a Science teacher, in Uttar Narayanpur Public ME Scho ol, on the ground that the same is fake and this assertion of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent No.5, it becomes clear that this disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ proceeding under Article 226 inasmuch as deter mination of such a question would require making of roving enquiry and would inc lude taking of evidence, which is not warranted in a proceeding of present natur e. In view of the above, Mr. Rosid, learned counsel, seeks to withdraw this writ pe tition with liberty to institute appropriate civil suit for remedy of the grieva nces of the petitioner. To the submission, so made, no objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. The petiti oner shall remain at liberty to institute appropriate civil suit for remedy of h is grievances. Before parting with this writ petition, it is also placed on record that though respondent No.5 has claimed to have been regularly appointed, nothing has been p laced on record till today by the respondent No.5 to show that there was a clear vacant post available at the time, when his appointment is shown to have been m ade as a teacher in the said school.