CWP No. 1085 of 2004. 7.3.2006 Present: Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shilpa Sood, Central Government Counsel for respsondent No.1. Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of this case, we find that the disputed question of fact in regard to the appointment of the petitioner in the Himachal Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyala arises in this writ petition and, therefore, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner, if so advised may seek remedy in civil Court. (V.K. Jhanji), Judge. March 7, 2006. (Surjit Singh), (rc) Judge.