Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) THIS Court while entertaining the present writ petition on 29th March, 2011 passed following order: "Petitioner is directed to implead Vivekanand S. Tripathi, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division) Siddharthnagar through Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad as respondent no. 7 to the present writ petition today itself. Notice on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 has been accepted by the Standing Counsel. Issue notice to respondents no. 6 & 7. Notice on respondent no. 7 may be served through Registrar General of this Court and for the purpose the office is directed to supply a copy of petition to the Registrar General along with copy of the order passed today by this Court. Steps for service upon respondent no. 6 by speed post be taken within a week. All the respondents may file counter affidavit by 18.4.2011. From the records of this petition, this Court finds that 15 persons namely including the present petitioner had filed a civil suit claiming payment of salary, on the allegations that they have been appointed in Samrat Ashok Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Karhana, District Sant Kabir Nagar being Original Suit No. 144 of 1981. The suit was earlier dismissed on the ground that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Against the order, the plaintiff filed a civil appeal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for re -examination of the issue of jurisdiction. At this stage, the manager of the institution and the plaintiff are stated to have entered into compromise and the suit is stated to have been decided in terms of the compromise without deciding the issue as to whether the suit itself was maintainable for want of jurisdiction or not. It is because of the said compromise decree and the injunction granted therein that the petitioners have drawn salary from the State exchequer. The collusion between the petitioner and the Manager of the institution and the compromise decree made by the Court prima facie appear to have resulted in the public exchequer being frauded. Before further orders are passed, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to all the respondents to explain the facts. List on 18.4.2011." Thereafter the matter came up for consideration on 3rd May, 2011, when following order was passed: "List again with the name of Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate as learned counsel for the respondents peremptorily on 11th May, 2011 in first ten cases. By the next date, counter affidavit must be filed by the State -respondents."
(2.) ON the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was again adjourned vide order dated 4th July, 2011. Today, nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner to press the present writ petition even in the revised reading of the list. It is clear that respondents have not furnished any explanation in the matter of illegal payment of salary only because of collusion between the Manager and the teacher concerned, wherein a compromise was struck in a civil suit without deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction under the order of the remand by the appellate authority.
(3.) THE Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government at Lucknow is directed to hold an enquiry in the matter of payment of salary to the present petitioner along with others in terms of the compromise between the plaintiffs and the management of the institution in original suit no. 144 of 1981. If it is found that the appointments were patently illegal and without following any procedure known to law or against non -sanctioned posts. The Secretary shall further proceed to issue orders for recovery of the loss caused to the State Government from the persons responsible for creating the situation, namely, the plaintiff and management of the institution along with District Inspector of Schools, if found involved. Such exercise must be completed within four weeks from today. Personal affidavit in that regard may be filed on the next date.;