- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2, although notices were issued by the order dated 11.03.2010 on the delay condonation application. The office has submitted a report on 26.04.2010 that neither undelivered cover, nor acknowledgment returned back after service. The notice deemed to be sufficient on Respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2011 by which the writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed in default as well as against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2010 by which learned single Judge dismissed the application of the Petitioner -Appellant for restoration of the writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in the stay application filed along with the appeal. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are agreed that the appeal be finally decided.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case arises to this appeal are that the Appellant (here -in -after referred to as 'Petitioner'), filed a writ petition praying for mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the salary to the Petitioner and arrears since the date of appointment i.e. 15.03.1991. The Petitioner's case in the writ petition was that Higher Secondary School, Talesra is a recognized educational institute under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is claimed that on account of death of one Mahender Kumar, Assistant Teacher on 06.09.1990, a vacancy came into existence, which was notified by the Committee of Management. The post having remained vacant after more than two months, the Committee of Management under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 made ad -hoc appointment of the Petitioner on 12.03.1991 as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. The Petitioner's case is that Petitioner's appointment was communicated by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools and since the District Inspector of Schools was not passing any order on the representation of the Petitioner with regard to payment of salary to the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of on 23.08.1991 directing the District Inspector of schools to consider the representation dated 30.05.1991 made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted a certified copy of this order along with an application to the District Inspector of Schools. The Petitioner's case is that No. order was passed and the District Inspector of Schools send a letter dated 18.11.1991 to the Additional Director of Education, Allahabad seeking certain guidance. The Petitioner's case is that he has been working on the post of Assistant Teacher and this Court passed an interim order on 22.05.1992 directing the District Inspector of Schools to pay salary to the Petitioner and on that basis an order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 17.08.1992 to make payment of salary to the Petitioner as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. The Petitioner's case is that under the interim order passed by this Court on 22.05.1992, he was getting his salary till 2009.;