WP(C) 4391/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher, in Mahumara ME Madrassa/School, with effect from 01-01-1989 and that he has remained associate d, with the said school, in the capacity of teacher along with other teachers in cluding the respondent No. 4 as Headmaster and that in the inspection report of the respondent No. 3, namely, District Elementary Education Officer, Morigaon, s ubmitted in the year 1999, the petitioner was shown to have been serving in the said school and that even in the year 2005, a letter was issued by the Block Mis sion Coordinator, Laharighat, Morigaon, showing the petitioner’s name as a teac her of the said school, but the State Government has, now, granted financial ass istance to the school and the Headmaster of the school has manipulated the recor d making the name of the petitioner disappear from the records of the school and thereby the petitioner has been deprived of his right to receive his share in t he financial assistance granted to the school. Heard Mr. D Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B Choudhury , learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of respond ent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the plead ed case of the writ petitioner is that though he had been a teacher in the said school since 1990, he has, now, been shown to have not been working in the said school, since 2002. The question as to whether the petitioner has or has not bee n serving in the capacity of Assistant Teacher in the said school is a question of fact and this fact is, admittedly, a disputed question of fact. This aspect o f the case assumes greater importance in the face of the fact that the inspectio n report of in the year 2010 does not reveal the name of the petitioner as an As sistant Teacher, the inspection having been conducted by the respondent No. 3, n amely, District Elementary Education Officer, Morigaon. In the circumstances indicated above, determination of the question as to whethe r the petitioner has been a teacher of the said school or not since 01-01-1989, as claimed by the petitioner, is entirely a disputed question of fact. Determina tion of such a disputed question of fact would obviously require holding of rovi ng inquiry and taking of evidence, which, in a proceeding under Article 226 of t he Constitution of India, is not, in the context of the facts of the present cas e, permissible in law. The remedy of the petitioner lies in instituting a civil suit and seek, if so advised, an order of injunction pending disposal of the sui t provided that the Court below considers it appropriate to grant injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of what have been indicated above, this writ petition is not admitted an d is allowed to be withdrawn on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with liberty granted to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriat e provisions of law, in future, if so advised. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of.