- (1.) THIS case has been listed in the ''list of old cases' that possibly have been rendered infructuous either on account of efflux of time or because the petitioner has not pursued the lis.
(2.) GIST of the matter has been noticed in order dated 16.6.2006, which is extracted herebelow: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. List in the second week of July, 2006 for admission/hearing of the writ petition. The petitioner has been working on a teaching post for sufficiently long time in the educational Institution. As per petitioner's learned counsel, he is qualified, fit and experienced teacher to hold the post. The Management of the institution had made his appointment after following due procedure as prescribed in law. As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of W.B., 2004 6 SCC 224 the management of the educational institutional is empowered to make such appointments in the interest of students for imparting proper education. The grievance of the petitioner is that now new appointee will replace a teacher who is already working satisfactorily in the institution and teaching the subject and holding the available post for substantially long period of time. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated in the writ petition, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post hold by him in the concerned institution and shall not be replaced by any other newly appointed teacher allocated by the D.I.O.S. or other authorities of the Education Department. The opposite parties shall pay salary to the petitioner for the post as the duties, functions and responsibilities of the post are being discharged by the petitioner, present incumbent. However, it is made clear that the benefit of this interim order shall be available to the petitioner only when he is still working on the post and employer -employee relations are continuing."
(3.) IT appears that subsequently an application for modification of above extracted order was made. The application was disposed of vide order dated 29.7.2009. The order dated 29.7.2009 reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner -applicant. This writ petition has been filed by a Lecturer in Mathematics, working in the "Rashtriya Inter College, Tenduai Kalan, Ambedkar Nagar, seeking continuance of his appointment on the said post. This court on 13.7.2006 had directed the respondents to indicate as to why the post meant for general category candidate held by the petitioner is going to be filled by a reserved category candidate. Taking into account the order dated 13.7.2006, a further order was passed by this court on 16.6.2006 providing an interim relief to the petitioner that his services shall not be disturbed if he is working on the post. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is working as Lecturer, Mathematics, in the above said college since 16.4.2004 uninterruptedly. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that despite the above two orders passed by the Court being operative and in vogue, some other candidate has been allocated the institution. His appointment has been made on the post held by the petitioner. The petitioner has become overage and if he is thrown out of employment, he will be unable to get any other job and the purpose of presenting this writ petition will be defeated. Since both the interim orders passed by the Court are operative, accordingly, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post of Lecturer, Mathematics, held by him in the aforementioned Institution without any interruption and if any other candidate has been posted in the college, he may be posted/adjusted in some other Institution in Uttar Pradesh where vacancy is available. The Modification Application is disposed of accordingly." This petition was filed in the year 2006. Stay is continuing. Circumstances emerging from the pleadings and interim direction indicate that the petitioner has been continuously serving the respondents as Mathematics Teacher. Till date, counter affidavit has not been filed. No further time can be granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit, as the petition has been pending for approximately eight years already.;