SUNITA AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 at length. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided without calling for counter affidavit.
(2.) BY means of the order dated 7.11.2014, payment of arrears of salary from 30.11.1996 to 28.2.2007 was refused to the petitioner while rejecting her representation dated 23.8.2012 pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 8.8.2012 in writ petition No. 62813 of 2008.
(3.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis under Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Act 1982 against a newly sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade. The post was later on notified to the Commission for selection of a regular incumbent. It was a scheduled caste reserved category post and one Smt. Sita Kumari was selected as LT Grade Teacher in the Scheduled Caste category and recommended for appointment on 4.11.1996. The appointment letter was issued by the committee of management and Smt. Sita Kumari joined on 29.11.1996. Pursuant thereto adhoc engagement of the petitioner came to an end particularly in view of the terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter itself. It appears that the claim for regularisation was considered by the regularisation committee and was rejected. Challenging the termination order and the rejection of claim for regularisation, writ petition no. 24907 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner which was decided on 11.1.2002. The operative portion of judgment and order dated 11.1.2002 is quoted as under: - "In the facts of the case, the Regularisation Committee, while adjudicating suitability of the petitioner, should have confined itself to the performance of the petitioner as teacher, i.e., percentage of her result in the subjects taught by her. In the result, the order dated 28.5.1997 annexure -6 to the petition and the impugned order dated 6.5.1997 annexure SA -2 to the Supplementary Affidavit are quashed with a direction to the concerned authorities to ensure that the concerned Regularisation Committee reconsiders the case of the petitioner for regularisation within two months of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment in the light of observations made above in this judgment." In compliance of the order dated 11.1.2002, the claim of regularisation of the petitioner was reconsidered by the regularisation committee and was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's adhoc appointment itself was illegal. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.4.2003 by the regularisation committee. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed writ petition no. 29490 of 2003 which was allowed on 7.8.2006. The order passed by the regularisation committee was set aside on two grounds. It was held that the first ground that the post was a reserved post and adhoc appointment of the petitioner was illegal, was not a good reason as the petitioner was appointed in 1989 prior to enforcement of the rules for selection. The second reason of unsatisfactory work of the petitioner was found bad on the ground that the management had indulged in hostile discrimination. It was held that the matter requires reconsideration by the regularisation committee in the light of the judgment dated 11.1.2002 passed in writ petition No. 24907 of 1997 and the observations made in the judgment and order dated 7.8.2006.;