- (1.) HEARD Sri Santosh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner alongwith six other persons was selected as Assistant Teacher in the academic session 1972 -1973 and the approval was granted. On the direction of Deputy Director of Education, District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh directed the Principal to send the names of the teachers working in the year 1972 -1973 so that their services may be extended for the next session i.e. 1973 -1974. The name of the petitioner was not sent by the principal, the petitioner approached the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh and the D.I.O.S. Vide order dated 31.08.1974 extended the services of the petitioner till 30.06.1975. However the said order was stayed as the Committee of Management approached this Court and the Writ Petition No. 133 of 1980 filed by the Committee of Management was finally decided by judgment dated 04.09.1985 clearly observing that the petitioner never worked beyond 1972 -73. The extract of the judgment is as follows: - "Opposite party no. 2 was appointed only as a temporary measure in the session 1972 -73. He did not function as a Teacher in the session 1973 -74 nor had the petitioners allowed him to function as a Teacher in the session 1974 -75 in spite of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Opposite party no. 2 cannot obviously function as a Teacher unless he is appointed as such by the Committee of Management. Since there is no order of appointment and, in any case, the period for which directions were issued by the District Inspector of Schools that opposite party no. 2 would be allowed to function as a Teacher has, as observed earlier, expired. The petition, we reiterate, has become infructuous. In view of the above the petition is disposed of finally in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs."
(3.) DURING the pendency of the said writ petition the other teachers appointed alongwith the petitioner were regularized in 1976. The petitioner did not continue after 1972 -73. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 15.11.1992, the Committee of Management had passed a resolution to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and the seniority was fixed with retrospective year i.e. 1972 -1973. However, the salary of the petitioner was not paid. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition which was disposed of with the direction to decide his representation which accordingly was rejected. The petitioner had again preferred a Writ Petition No. 2988 of 1993 to pay the salary. The petitioner had again filed another Writ Petition No. 381 of 1994. This Court by order dated 27.01.1994 directed the respondents to either pay or show cause.;